The Supreme Court agreed to consider, on December 4, the petitions filed by Congress President Rahul Gandhi and his mother, Sonia Gandhi, against a decision of the Delhi High Court authorizing the Department of Justice. income tax to reopen its 2011-12 taxes in the Young. Indian case.
A bench of judges A.K. Sikri and S. Abdul Nazeer said on Tuesday that appeals by the president of the Gandhi government and veteran Oscar Fernandes against the decision of the High Court of 10 September required a detailed hearing on the merits.
Although the court did not issue any formal notice, the IT department, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, was present in the courtroom and stated that "concrete evidence exists". To justify the reassessment change.
"Once we have heard the petitions at the bottom, it will no longer be necessary to put in notice," Judge Sikri said.
The lead counsel, P. Chidambaram, Kapil Sibal and Arvind Datar appeared for the three appellants in this case. One of the main arguments in this case is that Young Indian (YI) is a charitable institution, that is, a non-profit corporation incorporated under section 25 of the Companies Act pre-existing (which corresponds to Article 43 of the new Companies Act 2013).
Mr. Rahul Gandhi, a shareholder of the charity and non-profit corporation, said that no income had in fact escaped the assessment and that all issues had been adequately addressed in careful evaluation. In addition, as a shareholder of a non-profit corporation, he was not required to disclose the value of his shares as alleged by the I-T service.
The Delhi High Court had concluded that a loan of about 90 crore was due to Associated Journal Limited (AJL), publisher of the newspaper National Herald to the Congress Committee of India. When the loan amount became irrecoverable, it was awarded to YI, a company in which the Gandhi were the majority shareholders, for 50 lakh.
The income tax reassessment notices were based on the principle that the non-disclosure of the taxable event – allotment of Indian Indian shares (and the absence of a declaration of value) – had deprived the Evaluation Officer (AO) to consult on file.
"If he had (Mr. Gandhi) disclosed in his statements or in any other document relating to the event (acquisition of shares), the main fact would have been recorded in the record," had noted Training.
"The request for tax evasion by the BJP chief, Subramanian Swamy, and the investigation reports … was a tangible matter that … warranted a reassessment," the court concluded.
The income tax issue arose out of an inquiry into the private criminal complaint filed by BJP chief Subramanian Swamy in a court of first instance in the National Herald case. eom