Take the pledge to vote

For a better tommorow#AajSawaroApnaKal
  • I agree to receive emails from News18

  • I promise to vote in this year's elections no matter what the odds are.
  • Please check above checkbox.

    SUBMIT

Thank you for
taking the pledge

Vote responsibly as each vote counts
and makes a diffrence

Disclaimer:

Issued in public interest by HDFC Life. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited) (“HDFC Life”). CIN: L65110MH2000PLC128245, IRDAI Reg. No. 101 . The name/letters "HDFC" in the name/logo of the company belongs to Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited ("HDFC Limited") and is used by HDFC Life under an agreement entered into with HDFC Limited. ARN EU/04/19/13618
LIVE TV DownloadNews18 App
News18 English
Powered by cricketnext logo
»
2-min read

SC to Hear Pleas of Sonia, Rahul in Income Tax Case on Tuesday

Income Tax department has already filed a caveat in the apex court that it should be heard in case any appeal is filed against the high court order.

PTI

Updated:November 12, 2018, 8:53 PM IST
facebookTwitterskypewhatsapp
SC to Hear Pleas of Sonia, Rahul in Income Tax Case on Tuesday
File photo of Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. (PTI Photo/Ravi Choudhary)
Loading...

New Delhi: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Tuesday the petitions filed by Congress President Rahul Gandhi and his mother Sonia Gandhi challenging the Delhi High Court order refusing to give them relief in a case of re-opening of their tax assessments for 2011-12.

A bench of Justices A K Sikri and S Abdul Nazeer is slated to hear the appeals filed by Rahul, Sonia and veteran Congress leader Oscar Fernandes, who have challenged the September 10 verdict of the high court.

Income Tax department has already filed a caveat in the apex court that it should be heard in case any appeal is filed against the high court order.

A caveat is a legal procedure by which an application is filed by any party to the litigation to pre-empt an ex-parte order.

On September 10, Gandhis had failed to get any relief from the High Court which dismissed their challenge on reopening of their tax assessments for 2011-12.

Denial of any relief by the high court had paved the way for the Income Tax Department to scrutinise Congress leaders records for the assessment year 2011-12.

"...The assessees' rights to urge them are reserved in the income tax proceedings," the high court had said, while "dismissing" the three separate petitions filed by Gandhis and Fernandes, which were decided through a common order.

The income tax probe against the Congress leaders has arisen from the investigation into the private criminal complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy before a trial court in connection with the National Herald case, in which the trio are out on bail.

Sonia and Rahul were granted bail in the case by the trial court on December 19, 2015.

A tax evasion petition (TEP) was also addressed to the finance minister by Swamy.

In the complaint before the trial court, Sonia, Rahul and others have been accused of conspiring to cheat and misappropriate funds by paying just Rs 50 lakh, through which Young Indian (YI), the not-for-profit organisation, had obtained the right to recover Rs 90.25 crore that the Associated Journals Ltd (AJL) owed to the Congress party.

It was alleged that YI, which was incorporated in November 2010 with a capital of Rs 50 lakh, had acquired almost all shareholdings of the AJL, which was running the National Herald newspaper.

In this process, YI had also acquired AJL's debt of Rs 90 crore.

The tax department had said the shares Rahul has in YI would lead him to have an income of Rs 154 crore and not about Rs 68 lakh, as was assessed earlier.

It has already issued a demand notice for Rs 249.15 crore to YI for the assessment year 2011-12.

The department's move followed its probe on a complaint alleging that the Gandhis had misappropriated AJL's assets while transferring their shares to the newly formed YI.

The high court had noted in its order that the premise of the reassessment notices was that the non-disclosure of the taxing event-- allotment of shares of YI-- deprived the assessing officer of the opportunity to look into the records.

It had said that in Rahul's case, the non-disclosure of share acquisition constituted tangible material justifying reassessment.

In case of Sonia and Oscar, the bench said returns filed by them were processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, which pertains to 'Notice or intimation', and are not treated as "assessments".

Read full article
Loading...
Next Story
Next Story

Also Watch

facebookTwitterskypewhatsapp

Live TV

Loading...
Countdown To Elections Results
  • 01 d
  • 12 h
  • 38 m
  • 09 s
To Assembly Elections 2018 Results