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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more