{"id":5211,"date":"2012-07-19T12:20:04","date_gmt":"2012-07-19T12:20:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=5211"},"modified":"2012-07-20T04:03:55","modified_gmt":"2012-07-20T04:03:55","slug":"acit-vs-spray-engineering-devices-ltd-itat-chandigarh-value-of-shares-allotted-free-of-cost-to-employees-is-deductible-revenue-expenditure","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/acit-vs-spray-engineering-devices-ltd-itat-chandigarh-value-of-shares-allotted-free-of-cost-to-employees-is-deductible-revenue-expenditure\/","title":{"rendered":"ACIT vs. Spray Engineering Devices Ltd (ITAT Chandigarh)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
Click here to download the judgement (spray_engg_ESOP_expenditure.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n


\nValue of shares allotted free of cost to employees is deductible revenue expenditure
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

The assessee allotted 3,94,692 Sweat Equity shares (ESOP) to its employees free of cost for rewarding them for past services or providing know how for making available rights in the IPR as per s. 79A of the Companies Act, 1956. Though the shares were allotted for no consideration<\/em>, the assessee accounted for the shares at Rs.106.26 each<\/em> (face value Rs. 10) at its arms length price and claimed Rs. 4.19 crores as a deduction towards \u201cemployees benefit expenses\u201d<\/em>. The shares were not allotted as at 31.3.2006. The AO disallowed the claim on the ground that it was not an ascertained liability<\/em> but was a contingent liability though the CIT (A) allowed the claim. In appeal before the Tribunal, the department relied on Ranbaxy Laboratories<\/strong> 124 TTJ 771 (Del) & VIP Industries<\/strong> (ITAT Mum). HELD dismissing the appeal:<\/p>\n

Though the allotment of the ESOP shares was not done as of 31.3.2006, the number of shares to be allotted to the employees as on 31.3.2006 was specified and immediately thereafter the said shares were so allotted. Consequently, the mere non-allotment<\/strong> of the shares pending completion of certain formalities does not merit the disallowance of said expenditure as being a contingent liability<\/strong>. The fact that the scheme provided for a lock in period of five years<\/strong> under which in case the employee left employment before the expiry of five years, the shares so allotted to him would revert to the assessee<\/strong>, did not make the liability contingent<\/strong> because where the shares were forfeited, the value thereof would be offered to tax in that year (S.S.I. Ltd. vs. DCIT<\/a><\/strong> 85 TTJ 1049 (Chennai) followed; Ranbaxy Laboratories<\/strong> 124 TTJ 771 (Del) & VIP Industries<\/strong> (ITAT Mum) distinguished) <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nNote: S.S.I. Ltd<\/a><\/strong> 85 TTJ 1049 (Che) has been approved in PVP Ventures<\/a><\/strong> (Mad). For more see article<\/a> <\/strong>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Though the allotment of the shares was not done as of 31.3.2006, the number of shares to be allotted to the employees as on 31.3.2006 was specified and immediately thereafter the said shares were so allotted. Consequently, the mere non-allotment<\/strong> of the shares pending completion of certain formalities does not merit the disallowance of said expenditure as being a contingent liability<\/strong>. The fact that the scheme provided for a lock in period of five years<\/strong> under which in case the employee left employment before the expiry of five years, the shares so allotted to him would revert to the assessee<\/strong>, did not make the liability contingent<\/strong> because where the shares were forfeited, the value thereof would be offered to tax in that year (S.S.I. Ltd. vs. DCIT 85 TTJ 1049 (Chennai) followed; Ranbaxy Laboratories<\/strong> 124 TTJ 771 (Del) & VIP Industries<\/strong> (ITAT Mum) distinguished)<\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5211","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5211","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5211"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5211\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5211"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5211"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5211"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}