Live
- Woman’s False Claim Sparks Unnecessary Panic
- Locals Report Naxal Activity in Karkala Village
- Mangaluru International Airport Sets New Records in Passenger and Flight Movements
- Where Areca failed, grow Coffee
- Collector Badavath Santosh Reviews Household Survey and Listing Process
- Awareness Session on SHE Team and POCSO Act
- Awareness Program in agricultural College on the Dangers of Drug Abuse for Youth
- 3500-Year-Old Menhir in Kamsanpally Village: A Call for Preservation
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Radiology: Transforming Diagnosis and Patient Care
- Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Signs MoU with Rajasthan Government to Invest Rs 36 Crores in Education Development
Breather for Anil Ambani
Anil Ambani
Bombay HC directs I-T dept not to take any coercive action against Reliance Group’s chairman on notice under Black Money Act till Nov 17
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Monday directed the Income-Tax (I-T) department not to take any coercive action against Reliance Group chairman Anil Ambani till November 17 on a show cause notice issued to him seeking to prosecute him under the Black Money Act.
The I-T department had issued the notice to Ambani on August 8, 2022 for allegedly evading Rs 420 crore in taxes on undisclosed funds worth more than Rs 814 crore held in two Swiss bank accounts.
The department has charged Ambani (63) with "wilful" evasion, saying he "intentionally" did not disclose his foreign bank account details and financial interests to Indian tax authorities.
As per the department's notice, Ambani was liable to be prosecuted under Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (undisclosed foreign income and assets) Imposition of Tax Act of 2015, that stipulates a maximum punishment of 10 years imprisonment with a fine.
Ambani earlier this month approached the HC challenging the notice, claiming that the Black Money Act was enacted in 2015 and the alleged transactions are of assessment years 2006-2007 and 2010-2011. Senior counsel Rafique Dada, appearing for Ambani, said provisions of the Act cannot have a retrospective effect.
Advocate Akhileshwar Sharma, appearing for the I-T department, sought time to respond to the petition.
