CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

ESOP Discounts Are Deductible as Business Expenses: ITAT Mumbai Affirms in HDFC Bank Case

30 December 2024 10:07 AM

By: sayum


The tribunal holds that ESOP discounts are allowable as deductions under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, aligning with past judgments and SEBI guidelines. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled in favor of HDFC Bank regarding the deductibility of discounts on Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) as a business expense under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. This decision affirms the applicability of prior judgments and SEBI guidelines, ensuring consistency in the treatment of ESOP-related expenditures.

HDFC Bank granted stock options to its employees, amortizing the discount amount over the vesting period as per the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) guidelines. The bank claimed this amortization as a revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. However, the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had earlier rejected this claim, categorizing the expense as capital in nature.

The ITAT referred to the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. Biocon Ltd., which established that discounts on ESOPs are deductible as they aim to secure consistent services from employees rather than waste capital. The tribunal noted, “The primary object of offering ESOPs is not to waste capital but to earn profits by securing consistent services of employees”​​.

The tribunal observed that the deduction of the ESOP discount over the vesting period aligns with the accounting treatment mandated by SEBI guidelines. This consistency in accounting treatment and legal provisions was a crucial factor in the tribunal's decision​​.

In its ruling, the ITAT heavily relied on the precedent set by the Special Bench of ITAT in Biocon Ltd. vs. DCIT and subsequent affirmation by the Karnataka High Court. The tribunal also cited the Delhi High Court's decision in PVR Ltd. vs. CIT, which supported the view that ESOP discounts are a form of employee remuneration and thus deductible as revenue expenditure​​.

The tribunal concluded that the discount on ESOPs should be treated as remuneration to employees for their continuity of service, thus qualifying as a deductible expense under Section 37(1). The ruling emphasized that the expenditure’s nature as a revenue expense is not negated by its association with the procurement of capital assets (i.e., shares), as the underlying purpose is to incentivize and retain employees.

“The discount on issue of ESOPs is an allowable deduction under Section 37(1) as its primary objective is to earn profits by securing consistent services of employees,” noted the tribunal, underscoring the operational purpose of ESOPs over their capital nature​​.

The ITAT's ruling reinforces the judicial stance that ESOP-related discounts are legitimate business expenses under Indian tax law. By aligning its decision with established precedents and regulatory guidelines, the tribunal has provided clarity and consistency for corporations leveraging stock options to retain talent. This decision is expected to influence similar cases and support corporate practices that align employee incentives with business growth objectives.

Date of Decision: 05 July 2024

 

Latest Legal News