Skip to main content

Money paid under consent settlement can be treated as business expense: IT Appellate Tribunal

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has clarified that money paid under the consent decree mechanism to settle disputes is permissible as business expenditure and cannot be equated to penalty levied for breaching law. The clarification will set precedence as many companies are currently negotiating with the market regulator to settle disputes under the consent mechanism by paying a fee but without admitting or denying guilt.

They can record such costs as normal business expenditure and claim tax exemption. No such tax benefit can be taken on penalties levied for breaching law.

The ruling of the ITAT bench of BR Baskaran and Sanjay Garg came on a case related to Reliance Shares & Stock Broker, a unit of Anil Ambani's Reliance Group. For the assessment year 2008-09, the company had declared a loss of Rs 1.55 lakh in its Income Tax return. The assessing officer observed that it had paid Rs 50 lakh to the Securities and Exchange Board of India to settle a dispute, and disallowed it as business expenses.

The regulator had recommended for suspension of the company's certificate of registration as a stock broker for nine months for allegedly violating various regulations. Reliance Shares & Stock Broker challenged Sebi's decision at the Securities Appellate Tribunal, but before the tribunal made a decision, agreed to settle the issue with Sebi by paying Rs 50 lakh under the consent mechanism.

The tax department argued the company had paid a penalty for not following rules under the Sebi Act. The consent order passed by the regulator shall not change the character of violation or penalty initially levied by the board, it said.

The company's counsel submitted that Sebi had initiated the action in connection with certain technical violations based on powers given to the regulator to take administrative or civil action. According to the counsel, the Sebi Act makes clear demarcation of penalties levied under administrative or civil action for technical defaults and the penalties levied for offences committed.

The commissioner of income tax had not accepted the assessing officer's decision disallowing to record the fee as business expense, but that was challenged at the tribunal.

Article referred: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-11-12/news/56025526_1_securities-appellate-tribunal-consent-mechanism-sebi-act

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more