UNILEVER INDIA EXPORTS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, -CC 5(3), MUMBAI

O R D E R PER BENCH

These appeals of the assessee are directed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) dated 28/06/2022 and 28/07/2022 for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19, respectively. Since identical issues are agitated in these appeals, both the appeals are disposed of by way of this common order.

2 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited 2. The assessee, Unilever India Exports Limited (UIEL) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL). The fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) exports business of HUL was transferred to UIEL under a court approved scheme of arrangement with the appointed date of April 1, 2011.

Ground 1 : General Ground 2 :Final order of assessment is bad in law as the same is issued without DIN. Grounds 3 to 7: Transfer pricing adjustment for payment of central fees Grounds 8 & 9 : Disallowance under section 14A Grounds 10-13: Disallowance of ESOP expenses. Ground 14 : Excess levy of interest under section 234B & 234D Ground 15 : Initiation of penalty under section 270A

6 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited Services PB PB reference reference 2017-18 2018-19 Finance Kit (FKIT) – Finance Kit is the Treasury Management System used by Unilever Treasury Team for Risk management and treasury operations. Finance Kit is developed by Wall Street System (a global leader in providing treasury management solutions) and offers immediate visibility, control and simplified compliancethroughouttheenterprise).Thesolutioncombinesdepthoffunctionality PB Pg. PB Pg. 347 with seamless integration by enabling all cash management, trading, funding 392 and investment activities to be automated, audited, consolidated, and accounted for,instantaneously and globally. UIEL has been using Finance Kit for the following purposes: Forex Risk Management – Tracking exposures at a company and unit level and corresponding foreign exchange contracts with banks. This enables UIEL PB Pg. to PB Pg. 348 managetheforeignexchangeriskefficientlyandeffectivelyandensurecompliance 393 to with the approved forexpolicy. 394 Accounting – The accounting entries for forex transactions are generated from the finance kit. This is then posted in UIEL's SAP ERP. It similarly automates PB Pg. the 347 to 349 accountingforinvestmenttransactionstherebyeliminatingmanualaccountingand PB Pg. tracking.FinanceKitalsohasdirectfeedsfrominformationserviceproviderssuch as 392 to Reuters and market information such as MTM can be directly accessed from 394 FinanceKit. It also helps generate various accounting reports. Reporting and MIS – The System provides management with various reports on forexandinvestmenttransactionsandhelpsthemanagementtohaveabird'seye PB Pg. view of the status of the forex exposure and corresponding hedge against the 347 to 349 same. Cash flows, investment positions etc. can be directly obtained from the 7 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited Services PB PB reference reference 2017-18 2018-19 FinanceKit. PB Pg. Counterparty Risk Management – UIEL investments and foreign exchange 392 to transactions are subject to overall counterparty risks, hence there is an 394 approved counterpartylimitforeachbankthatUIELdealswith.Alltransactionswiththebank are recorded in Finance Kit and compliance against approved limits is tracked on a real-time basis using FinanceKit. Environmental sustainability – Given the industry and regulatory focus on environmental sustainability, UIEL is following very high standards to ensure minimum impact on the environment through constant improvement in PB Pg. PB Pg. processes and technologies. Unilever's global operations help UIEL to 395 350 to 353 understand the latest trends in environmental sustainability and adopt to398 suchtechnologies. Issue management tools – Due to widespread information available through social media and other mediums, any issue can flare up with lightning speed. To manage such crises, guidelines are provided by Unilever to provide PB Pg. PB Pg. necessary protocols for crisis management and to prevent anymishaps. There 399 to 354 to355 are various templates and training documents about risk and issue 400 management. This tool also helps in understanding the best practices to be adopted. Further, there are constant improvements to improve the usability and functionality of logging issues. There is guidance available depending on the priority of issues eg. critical, high, low, etc. Personal Care Identity Toolkit – To increase the awareness and position of PB Pg. PBPg. UIEL‟sproductsinamoreunique,authenticanddifferentwaythanitscompetitors. 401 to 356to 357 UnileverhascreatedaspecialtoolwhichisadoptedbyUIELtoensureconsistency in 402 the visibility of the products both internally and externally in the market. The 8 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited Services PB PB reference reference 2017-18 2018-19 toolkit uses techniques like visual identity, photography, graphic styling,etc. Human Resources (HR) services – UIEL has a large workforce, thereby making PB Pg. PB Pg.358 theHRfunctionextremelyimportant.Tohelpinmanagingitsemployeesefficiently, 403 to Unilever‟s Global HR team has provided various tools and applications to 405 UIEL, whichhelpsUIELinthe automationofitsHRfunctions.Followingaresomeofthetools and applications used byUIEL: PB Pg. PB Pg. HR Online - An Oracle tool used for managing employee lifecycle actions, 359 to 361 like moves/ transfers etc. This helps the line managers to initiate such requests 406 to 408 for their team. Employees manage their personal information through this application. The home page of the website HR Online is accessed by the employees. Further, it provides various tabs to the employees according to the information to be accessed by the employees. information to be accessed Peoplesoft – An Oracle ERP application which manages employee data and PB Pg. their position-relateddetails. A specific requirement is through the request 362 to 364 PB Pg. service page and the request status page. 409 Learning Hub – It is a learning application, of different types i.e. web-based, PB Pg. virtual and blended learning modules. This is used for learning and 365 to 384 development and capabilityagendas. The home page, guidelines for the PB Pg. Learning Hub application and the learning calendar. 410 to 429 PB Pg. Unify – It is a leave management Module. The employee uses this application 385 to 387 to manage their assigned annualleaves. Homepage, request for encashment and the email from Unify Team for leave approval request. PB Pg. Sparkle – It is a tool to manage Blue-collar employees‟ capability and 430 to 432

9 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited Services PB PB reference reference 2017-18 2018-19 performancemanagement. The Sparkle quick reference guide and the screenshot of the Sparkle home page displaying various tabs such as PB Pg. assessment and identification of skill gaps and priority areas for training, track 388 to 389 progress and map primary and secondary skills based on standardized jobs. Also, the screenshot of various documents such as sparkle key activities, PB Pg. sparkle training decks, sparkle support model etc 433 to 434 TalentPlusOnline–UnileverhasprovidedanonlinetoolwhichisusedbyUIEL as a recruitment, talent and performance management system for keeping track of PB Pg. 390 to 412 one's individual performance development. It allows UIEL employees to manage their Talent Profile, set goals, create Individual Development Plans and conduct mid-year and annual reviews for self-developmentpurposes. PB Pg. 435 to 457

Assistance by Unilever for undertaking various businessprocesses: Specification management – UIEL also receives process-related support from the globalteam.Forexample,the„specificationmanagementtool‟isacommunication tool between the R&D team and the supply chain team. This tool contains the detailed specification of products including the formulation and PB Pg. PB Pg. manufacturing process (with flow diagrams). The same is used to support the 458 to 413 to 415 raw material purchasing decision for the procurement team and the 460 manufacturing of a product for the manufacturing team. The tool for creating a specification to display the entire formulation process. Logistic support – Unilever has provided Ultralogistik software (Oracle

10 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited Services PB PB reference reference 2017-18 2018-19 Transport Management system) to India for tracking its supply chain of products, etc. The software focuses to track the movement of supplies which are transported bysea/ road. Procurement support – The Global Procurement Team helps UIEL Procurement Team by giving timely advice and guidelines by providing market intelligence on Global markets and guidance on commodity pricing to enable UIEL to take timely decisions. Quality managementguidelines:- UIELhasaccesstotheUnileverGlobalQualityManagementSystem(QMS)which is a one-stop-shop for global quality standards, processes and tools and is PB Pg. accessible to everyone within Unilever. It covers all the business critical PB Pg. 416 to 417 quality processes needed to design, manufacture and distribute safe products 461 to for use by consumers. 462

Some of the recent quality standard documents issued by the Global QMS Teamare on Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) for the Foods Category, HPC, Refreshments, etc., Cleaning and Disinfection, Consumer relevant quality standards,Disposalofnon- conformingproducts,Foreignmattermanagementand control, Integrated Pest Management, Personnel Hygiene & Employee facilities, Prevention of Cross Contamination, Quality Sampling, Monitoring &Testing, Guidelines on Warehouse and Transport,etc. The home page displays various documents such as Supplier Assurance and Audit, microbiological and hygiene issues, customer services, complaint handling and management of errors etc.

UIEL gets significant inputs on consumer-relevant quality standards (CRQS) from the global teams, and in addition, there is significant value addition by 11 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited Services PB PB reference reference 2017-18 2018-19 doing category-specific deep dives, recommending solutions based on experiences in otherUnilevercountriesandineducatingUIELteamsonqualitystandardsfornew productinnovations. Safety – UIEL gets expert advice from a global centre of excellence in the UK PB Pg. PB Pg. called the Safety & Environmental Assurance Centre (SEAC). They advise on 463 to 418 to 419 the design ofnew projects and facilities, safety incident investigation, 464 discussions with internal and external consultants without any cost to UIEL and provide in-depthadvice. Process Safety – UIEL Team gets training on specialist subjects from Subject matterexperts.

Group Security – It provides specialized security training via web and face-to- face inadditiontositeassessments.Theyalsoguidesecuritystrategy& hardware standards for access control & security surveillance that help UIEL get the right hardware at the right cost without bringing in externalconsultants. Risk Management – UIEL believes that effective risk management isfundamental to good business management and that the success of an organization like UIEL dependsonitsabilitytoidentifyandthenexploitthekeyrisksandopportunitiesfor PB Pg. PB Pg. the business. Successful businesses take/manage risks and opportunities in a 465 to 420 to 426 considered, structured, controlled and effective way. Unilever shares a lot of 471 information on risk management with UIEL, which helps UIEL in framing its risk management policies. The risk management homepage displays the principles of risk management, the embedded risk management approach, the risk management policy, global physical security procedures guidance document incorporating the scope and structure. The Unilever Principles of 12 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited Services PB PB reference reference 2017-18 2018-19 Risk Management are to be implemented by all the managers.

10. Besides the Ld.AR also submitted a detailed written submission which has been taken on record for the purpose of adjudication. The summary of the submissions of the ld AR is as under  The assessee has rightly benchmarked the payment of intra-group services based on CUP, which is one of the prescribed methods, and has also provided documentation in support of the rendition of services in both the impugned years.

 Though the TPO states he has followed the „Other method‟, no comparable transaction has been brought on record, and the TPO has merely resorted to ad- hoc benchmarking of the transaction which is contrary to the mandate of section 92C of the Act. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has repeatedly held in various decisions that ad-hoc transfer pricing additions, without following any one of the prescribed methods, are not sustainable in law.

 In AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14, the Tribunal has deleted the transfer pricing addition arising from TPO‟s identical determination of ALP. The facts of the impugned are the same accordingly, the findings of the said decision ought to apply mutatis-mutandis to the impugned assessment years.

 In AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17, the Tribunal has deleted the transfer pricing addition arising from TPO‟s identical determination of ALP. The facts of the impugned are the same accordingly the findings of the said decision ought to apply mutatis-mutandis to the impugned assessment years.

11. The ld AR also submitted that the scientific CUP analysis done by the assessee ought to be upheld, instead of the ad-hoc nil determination of ALP by the 13 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited TPO. The summary of the economic analysis undertaken by the assessee sin AY 2017-18 is as under: Particulars AY 2017-18 FAR and benchmarking discussion in TPSR PB Pg. 104 4 No. of Comparable instances PB Pg.118 to 123 Various advisories, management advisory, strategic planning, Nature of services business administration, marketing etc 5.75% Mean PB Pg. 119 1% Payment by Ld AR PB Pg. 107 Conclusion At ALP

12. The Ld.DR, on the other hand submitted that the assessee has failed to substantiate that the services are indeed rendered, what benefit is derived and what is the need for availing the services from AE instead of locally etc. The ld DR further submitted that the evidences submitted by the assessee are only screenshots from the software and are inadequate. The ld DR also argued that what is the overall cost incurred by the AE for the services is not provided in order to understand that the amount paid is reasonable as compared to uncontrolled transactions. With regard to the contention that the TPO has not done any bench marking, the ld DR submitted that the TPO has adopted “other Method” for bench marking and had determined the ALP at NIL. The ld DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Akzonobel India (P) Ltd vs ACIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 468 (Delhi) to submit that when the assessee fails to furnish evidences to demonstrate that the services are rendered the TPO is justified in determining the ALP at NIL.

14 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited 13. The ld AR in rebuttal submitted that the assessee has done a proper bench marking using CUP method and has chosen external comparables having agreements for intergroup services and accordingly concluded that the price paid by the assessee is within arms length. The ld AR further submitted that the price paid is not based on cost allocation considering the complexity and the size of the parent company, the price is determined as a percentage of the turnover, since the benefit derived by the assessee from the inter group services are directly linked to the turnover. With regard to the determination of ALP at NIL the ld AR argued that while applying the “other method” the TPO should have chosen something uncontrolled which he has not done in the present case and therefore determination of ALP at NIL is not correct. The ld AR drew our attention to the various documentary evidences submitted as part of paper book to submit that the assessee has discharged the onus by providing the necessary evidences for having received the services and therefore the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High relied on by the ld DR is not applicable in assessee’s case.

15 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited In fact, the observations of the Transfer Pricing Officer on the issue are very cryptic and non–speaking. Therefore, simply for the reason that the determination of arm's length price by the Transfer Pricing Officer is not in accordance with the statutory provisions, the adjustment made deserves to be deleted. In any case of the matter, it is noticed by us that under the very same agreement, the AE is paid royalty by Hindustan Unilever Ltd. for domestic sales and by the assessee in respect of export sales. While examining the royalty payment in case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. in assessment year 2013–14, the Transfer Pricing Officer has accepted royalty paid to the AE to be at arm's length. Similarly, in the order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act in respect of AE, the Transfer Pricing Officer has accepted the royalty payment to be at arm's length. That being the case, the arm's length price of royalty payment at the hands of the assessee cannot be determined at nil. In any case of the matter, it is not disputed that the assessee is remunerated by the AE on cost plus mark–up basis. That being the case, royalty paid to the AE forms part of the cost base of the assessee on which it has charged mark–up @ 9%. In the aforesaid circumstances, if the payment of royalty to the AE is disallowed by determining the arm's length price at nil, then logically the income of the assessee also should be reduced. This is the view expressed by the Co–ordinate Bench in Mercer Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the ratio laid down in the decisions cited before us, we are of the view that the adjustment made by determining the arm's length price of royalty payment at nil deserves to be deleted. Accordingly, we do so. Grounds are allowed.”

16 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited that before the authorities below, the assessee has given all the detailed submission and analysis not only demonstrating the rendition of central services but also commensurate benefits derived from such services to the assessee. This is evident from the details discussed above has called upon by us during the course of hearing. Accordingly, it cannot be held that either there was no rendition or no benefit as observed by the ld. TPO. Apart from that the CUP analysis done by the assessee by taking four comparables in both the assessment years in providing advisories, management advisory, strategic planning, business administration services, marketing plan, protocols, procedures, etc., wherein mean margin determined was 2.75% in A.Y.2015- 16 and 5.75% in A.Y.2016-17; whereas the assessee has made payment at 0.50% in A.Y.2015-16 and 0.75% in 2016-17. Thus, the payment made by the assessee for Central services are at ALP and the adjustments made by the ld. TPO is deleted.

16.2 The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the contention of the assessee. The AO observed that “7.3 It is seen that the assessee has suo-moto disallowed an amount of Rs. 66.150/- under u/s 14A of the Act in respect of Expenditure incurred in relation to Income not includible in total income in A.Y 2017-18 at the time of filing income tax return. In this connection, it is submitted that the expenses disallowable u/s 14A of the Act do not limit only to the proportionate salaries of one or two persons. There is a larger environment consisting of Board Directors, senior officials, maintenance costs to keeping these people operational and a host of other indirect expenses. Further during the scrutiny assessment the assessee has re-computed disallowance u/s 14A and accordingly on the basis average investment is Rs.49,02,45,834/- and 1% thereon is Rs.49,02,458/- is disallowed. In this regard it is seen that the annual average of monthly average of the opening and closing investments has been computed only based on investment wise monthly summery for four month instead of twelfth month. 7,4 Furthermore, the assessee state that for the purpose of computing monthly average of investment for Rule 8D, have been ignored and investment like Growth Scheme of Liquid Funds, Hindustan Unilever Foundation and Pond Exports Limited are not capable of yielding exempt income. However, the said contention of the assessee is not acceptable as the Act and relevant rules does not provide for such selective exclusion and what has to be considered is the investment wherein income

18 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited received or receivable including in future is not includible in the total income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had in the case of Maxopp Investment asserted that whether dividend income is earned or not is immaterial for the attracting of the provisions of Section 14A. Moreover, the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.12.2014 provides a clarification in this regard that the provisions of Rule 8D and Section 14A are applicable even when no exempt income is received. 7.5 In view of the said facts it is held that the contention of the assessee is not tenable and the disallowance of expenses related to the activity from which the income shall not form part of the total income is made as per the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules by considering the average investment wherein the income shall be not includible in the total income irrespective whether it is earned during the year or not. The disallowance is to be made as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) at 1% of the annual average of monthly average of the opening and closing investments, income from which shall not form part of the total income. In absence of detailed summary of investment, the annual average of monthly average of the opening and closing investments have been computed on the basis of financial statement provided by the assessee vide submission dated 16.03.2013.Accordingly annual average of monthly average of the opening and closing investments comes to 184,49,42,324/-(99,81,38,451+2,69,17,46,197/2) and 1% thereto is Rs.1,84,49,423/- which is accordingly disallowable out of the expenses claimed for the year as related to the activity income from which is exempt from tax. However, the assessee has on its own disallowed an amount of Rs.66,150/- on such account and accordingly the balance of Rs.1,83,83,273/-(1,84,49,423-66,150) is disallowed.”

16.3 The ld. DRP upheld the ld. AO‟s action. 16.4 The Ld AR submitted that the assessee‟s suo-moto disallowance is appropriate and scientific. The AO has not recorded any cogent satisfaction for rejecting the said calculation. The AO has proceeded on conjectures and surmises by observing that “there is a large environment consisting of Board of Directors, senior officials, maintenance costs to keeping these People operational and a host of other indirect expenses”. Both AO and the Hon‟ble DRP failed to appreciate that the treasury team of the Assessee was capable and authorized(AY 2017-18 PB Pg. 502) to carry out the investment activities and the proportionate cost was already disallowed(AY 2017-18 PB Pg. 475). No specific defects were found by 19 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited either of the authorities in the said work. It is further submited that the AO has proceeded to invoke Rule 8D mechanically, without any cogent satisfaction to reject the Ld AR‟s suo-moto disallowance, which manifests from the facts that: o The AO has not applied his mind at all, despite submission from the Ld AR on the aspect that investments that yielded taxable capital gains ought to be removed from the calculation. o The AO has not applied the amended Rule 8D(2)(ii), which required the calculation of “annual average of the monthly average” and instead had computed the disallowance based on an unamended provision wherein average investment is calculated based on “the first day and last day of the previous year”.

16.5 Accordingly, the Ld AR prayed that the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the DRP ought to be deleted following the Hon‟ble Tribunal‟s decision for AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 (LPB Pg. 71 to 72, Para 23).

16.6 We notice that the similar issue has been considered and decided by the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case (supra) in A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17 where it is held that:- 23. After considering the aforesaid submissions, we are in tandem with the contentions of the ld. Counsel, because in so far as investment made in A.Y.2015-16 is concerned, these are mostly growth options of UTI mutual funds which does not yield any dividend income but are taxable as capital gains, hence, the same cannot be taken up for computing the disallowance under section 14A. If the average investment of Rs.0.29 Crores is taken into consideration, then disallowance would work out under Rule 8D(2)(iii) would be only Rs.1.45 lakhs which is much less than the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. Similarly, in A.Y.2016-17 also the investment in Kotak Mahindra Mutual Fund-Direct Growth and Reliance Mutual Fund-Direct Plan Grown which yields taxable income and therefore, same cannot be taken as part of computation for the purpose of disallowance. Once, these are excluded from the disallowance, then according to Rule 8D(2)(iii), the disallowance in A.Y.2016-17 would be Rs.1.45 lakhs. In any case, the ld. AO has mechanically applied Rule 8D without having recorded his satisfaction or examining the nature

20 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited of investments whether they have yielded any exempt income or not, thus, such disallowance made by the ld. AO are to be deleted. Accordingly, these grounds are allowed.

16.7 For the year under consideration also the assessee has investments the details of which has already been furnished before the AO (page 472 to 479 of paper book). Further it is noticed that that AO has applied Rule 8D without having recorded his satisfaction or examining the nature of investments whether they have yielded any exempt income or not. Therefore respectfully following the above decision of the coordinate bench in assessee ’ s own case we delete the disallowance made by the assessing officer.

17. Disallowance of ESOP expenditure (Grounds 10 to 13)

17.1 The assessing officer during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.147.50 lakhs towards benefit provided to employees of the company in respect of “Employees Share Option Scheme (ESOP)”The assessee made a detailed submission before the assessing officer explaining the nature of the ESOP and the reasons why the same is allowable u/s.37(1). However the assessing officer did not accept the contentions of the assessee by stating that the ESOP expenses has not crystalised and that the same is capital in nature. Accordingly the AO disallowed the ESOP expenditure. The DRP upheld the disallowance.

17.2 We heard the parties. We notice that the issue is covered by the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for AY 2015-16 & 206-17 where it is held that – 21 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited 29. This issue again is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Unilever Industries Pvt. Ltd. supra where the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Biocon Ltd, the relevant observation of the Tribunal reads as under:- 10. The Ld. AR has made elaborate submissions on the ESOP scheme & expenditure and provisions of law on the allowability of claim. We found that the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT(LTU) VS M/S Biocon Ltd in ITA.No.653 of 2013 dated 11-11- 2020 has observed as under: 9. In the instant case, the ESOPs vest in an employee over a period of four years i.e., at the rate of 25%, which means at the end of first year, the employee has a definite right to 25% of the shares and the assessee is bound to allow the vesting of 25% of the options. It is well settled in law that if a business liability has arisen in the accounting year, the same is permissible as deduction, even though, liability may have to quantify and discharged at a future date On exercise of option by an employee, the actual amount of benefit has to be determined is only a quantification of liability, which takes place at a future date. The tribunal has therefore, rightly placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in Bharat Movers supra and Rotork Controls India P. Ltd., supra and has recorded a finding that discount on issue of ESOPS is not a contingent liability but is an ascertained liability.

11. We find the facts of the present case are similar respect of claim of ESOP Expenses and we follow ratio of judicial decision and direct the assessing officer to delete the addition and allow the grounds of appeal in favour of the assessee.

23 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited 32. Accordingly, following the aforesaid decision in assessee’s own case, this addition stands deleted.

17.3 The facts being identical for the year under consideration, respectfully following the above decision we hold that the addition made by the AO towards ESOP expenses be deleted.

I.T.A. No.2107/Mum/2022 for A.Y. 2018-19

24 ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited 22. Through Ground No.2, the assessee is contending the TP adjustment made towards Central Services. For the year under consideration the ld AR and Ld DR made similar submissions. We have in the earlier part of this order, have considered the same issued and have held that the TP adjustment be deleted. The facts for AY 2018-19 being identical, we hold that the TP adjustment made towards central services for this year also be deleted.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11/05/2023.