TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by law, as per the language of Explanation 1 to section 37 of the Act, in our view, is a highly debatable issue as there are judicial precedents holding that penalty paid for delay in various obligations to SEBI/Stock Exchange/RBI does not amount to infringement/infraction of any law. Therefore, merely because assessee accepted the disallowance, it will not lead to the conclusion that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Security Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai upheld the decision of Security Exchange Board of India (SEBI) imposing penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of delay in compliance with Regulation 8(3) of SAST Regulations, 1997. In the original return of income filed for the impugned assessment year on 24.11.2015 declaring income of Rs.14,26,88,670/-, the assessee did not claim the above said amount of Rs.5,00, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee challenged the imposition of penalty by filing an appeal before ld. Commissioner(Appeals), however, the penalty imposed was confirmed. 3. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is a fact on record that in the original return of income filed for the assessment under dispute, the assessee did not claim the deduction of Rs.5,00,000/- paid to SEBI for v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s merely claimed the payment as deduction, which was not claimed in the original return of income. Therefore, factually, it cannot be treated as a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. In any case of the matter, whether the payment made to SEBI for violation of certain SEBI Regulations is on account of any offense or is prohibited by law, as per the language of Explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
