TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue is sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2. In the facts and under the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to recomputed and allow long term capital loss after considering indexation, 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 application for ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts 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 Rs. 53,63,358/- in the P&L Account as fees paid to SEBI. Out of this amount Rs. 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 that the demand was quantified only after receipt of order form the Securities Appellate Tribunal and was therefore paid during the relevant assessment year and should be allowed u/s 43B. The appellant has quoted the decision of the Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 SCL 474 (Cal) wherein an interim order was passed by the High Court on 20.05.2004, ~here after was payment was made by the appellant. " .................................................................... 23. According to the perception of the income tax department contained in Circular No. 528 dated 16. 12. 1988, the disallowance was to cover any amount payable to any statutory authority including loc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A), I am of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly respectfully followed the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi decision in the case of CIT vs. BLB Ltd. reported in ITA No. 1878/2010 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 of Rs. 39,83,538/- was therefore paid during the year. In view of the discussion above and in view of the judgement of the Honble High Court of Delhi the amount of Rs. 39,83,538/- was rightly allowed as a deduction to the assessee and thus addition was deleted and ground of appeal was ruled in favou....