Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 1146 - ITAT DELHI

2016 (9) TMI 1146 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Disallowance in respect of fee paid to SEBI - Held that:- CIT(A) has rightly respectfully followed the decision in the case of CIT vs. BLB Ltd. reported [2010 (3) TMI 907 - DELHI HIGH COURT] by observing that the assessee was required to pay a fee to SEBI. The assessee filed an appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal who passed the order dismissing the appeal and thereafter the assessee made the payment. The amount was therefore paid during the year .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,163/-. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in directing the AO to re-compute and allow the loss after considering indexation. In view of the above, CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. No.2217/DEL/2015 - Dated:- 16-8-2016 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Department : NONE For The Assessee : Sh. R.K. GUPTA, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM Revenue has filed the appeal against the Order dated 19.1.2015 passed by the L .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation, as the same are unlisted shares. 3. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh grounds of appeal and / or delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal. 2. The facts narrated by the Revenue Authorities are not disputed, therefore, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience. 3. Notice of hearing was issued to both the parties and in response to the same only the Ld. A.R. of the Assessee attended the hearing, but none appeared on behalf of the Department nor any appl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. BLB Ltd. passed in ITA 1878/2010. Therefore, he stated that present appeal may be dismissed accordingly. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. I find that Ld. CIT(A) has elaborately adjudicated the issue vide para no. 6 to 7 vide his order dated 19.1.2015. The relevant paras no. 6 to 7 are reproduced as under:- 6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of disallowance of ₹ 39,83,538/-0 which was fees paid by the appel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 6.2. The appellant had to pay the entire fee to SEBI during the relevant assessment year. SEBI raised demand for interest on this fee which was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6.3. The AO noted that the appellant had claimed ₹ 53,63,358/- in the P&L Account as fees paid to SEBI. Out of this amount ₹ 38,83,538/- pertained to earlier years and was paid during this year. The AO disallowed this amount stating that this was prior period expenses . 6. 4. The appellant stated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

T who relied on the order passed by ITAT Mumbai Bench in case of ITO vs. Suresh Chand 100 ITD 435 and another In case of K Holding Co. (P) Ltd vs. DCIT 32 SOT 586 wherein it had been held that SEBI turnover fee, being a statutory liability was allowable u/s 43B of the Act. Accordingly, in the present case ITAT held that same as payment as fee is filing u/s 43B in the year under consideration as payment was made during the year. 11. The ITA T has come to the conclusion on the following basis:- (I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

were representing to the Board that the 'fee' was arbitrary and excessive. (v) The brokers forum went to the Supreme Court who vide its judgment dated 07.02.2011 upheld the regulations of SEBI and held that the 'fee' levied by SEBI was reasonable and valid. (vi) In the meantime, the SEBI came out with one time settlement 'fees' along with interest for non-late payment of SEBI registration 'fee'. There was a case of Lalit Kumar Marodia vs. UOI & Ors. 2005 59 SC .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ity including local authority and could be allowed only in the year in which such an amount is paid In that view, therefore, the amendment was made and it was clarified that such an amount would also be allowable only on actual payment irrespective of the previous year in which liability to pay such sum was incurred In view thereof, the amendment was made and it was clarified that such an amount would also be allowable only on actual payment irrespective of the previous year in which liability t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wed as a deduction to the appellant. The addition is thus deleted. The ground of appeal is ruled in favour of the appellant. 7. Ground No.3 is in respect of the fact that the AO determined long term capital loss at ₹ 75 lacs but did not allow indexation of cost. The appellant has stated that the loss after indexation works out to RS.1,19,10,163/-. The AO is directed to re-compute and allow the loss after considering indexation. The ground of appeal is ruled in favour of the appellant. 5.1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version