SC dismisses petition filed
by Shanti Bhushan & Prashant Bhushan, seeking constitution of Special
Investigation Team, directing investigation of the allegedly incriminating
material seized in CBI/tax department raids conducted on Birla & Sahara
group of companies; Mr. Bhushan argued that during the raids, e-mails and excel
sheets were found that showed payment of cash to several important 'public'
figures; Apex Court cites ratio in V.C. Shukla/Jain Hawala diaries case,
wherein the court held that entires in loose papers/sheets are irrelevant and
not admissible under Sec. 34 of Evidence Act and only where entries are in
books of accounts/regularly kept, those are admissible; Further cites V.C.
Shukla ratio to drive home the point that entires in books of account alone
shall not constitute sufficient evidence to implicate a person since the same
is only "corroborative" evidence; SC observes that the judiciary
ought to be cautious while ordering investigation against any important
constitutional functionary/officers in the absence of "prima facie
reliable/legally cognizable material" which are not supported by 'other
circumstances'; Holds that "..... In case we do so, the investigation can
be ordered as against any person whosoever high in integrity on the basis of
irrelevant or inadmissible entry falsely made, by any unscrupulous person or
business house that too not kept in regular books of accounts but on random
papers at any given point of time."; As for Sahara raids, SC refers
to Settlement Commission order dated November 11, 2016 wherein the Commission
recorded a finding that transactions noted in the documents were not genuine
and did not attach any evidentiary value to the pen drive, hard disk, computer
loose papers, computer printouts; SC concludes " ... it would not be
legally justified, safe, just and proper to direct investigation, keeping in
view principles laid down in the cases of Bhajan Lal and V.C. Shukla.":SC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
CBDT issues second round of frequently asked questions in relation to Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024
This Tax Alert summarizes Circular No. 19/2024 dated 16 December 2024 (VSV 2- December Circular) issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax...
-
PCIT vs. The Executor of Estate of Late Smt. Manjula A. Shah (Bombay High Court) S. 50C Capital Gains: The valuation of the stamp autho...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) [1] on availability of CENVAT Credit on mobile towers and pre-fabrica...
-
IFRS and US GAAP - Similarities and Differences What is IFRS? And what is GAAP? The main difference between IFRS and US GAAP is that G...
-
Madras HC reverses ITAT's order, grants deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) to assessee (a society engaged in the business of banking and provi...
-
SC dismisses assessee-company’s SLP challenging Bombay HC order upholding re-assessment initiation (beyond 4 yrs period) based on a special...
-
SC dismisses Revenue’s SLP challenging Bombay HC order in case of assessee (belonging to Lodha group of companies engaged in real estate bu...
-
Claiming a foreign tax credit (FTC) in Australia allows companies to offset foreign taxes paid on income earned overseas against their Aust...
-
HC allows HDFC Bank’s writ petition, quashes AO’s order and subsequent reference to TPO alleging that certain related party transactions [p...
-
Delhi ITAT deletes Rs. 1558.57 cr. capital gains addition on Telenor India for AY 2014-15, holds that set off of non-refundable entry fee p...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Bombay High Court (HC)1 on admissibility of input tax credit (ITC) w.r.t GST on advance p...
No comments:
Post a Comment