Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to tax recovery mechanism under it act. (Para 2) |
| 2. factual background of the case (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. fdrs and bank account details (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. investment fraud details (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. arguments against the special judge's order (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. legal precedence of pmla over it act (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. investors' claims against accused for fraudulent investment. (Para 53 , 54) |
| 8. competing claims of tax liability and proceeds of crime. (Para 58 , 59) |
| 9. determining if proceeds are taxable income (Para 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 10. pmla overrides it act for recovery of proceeds. (Para 83) |
2. The brief facts of the case as per the Petition are that a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961, was carried out by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department on 18.01.2011, at the residential and office premises of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and the Firm M/s Stockguru India in which number of incriminating documents, details of all Bank Account/s deposit/s with all kind properties, articles, etc. in their names including the cash of Rs.34,69,00,000/-, were seized by the Investigation Wing of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
