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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
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