#AshokMittalhotelRoyalPlaza, #BlackMoney, #IncomeTax, #Hillcrest, #TaintedHillcrestInvestment, #NandKishoreChaturvedi
Bharat Jeetega, Corruption Meetega!
PUBLIC INVESTIGATION
EXPOSE ON THE MAJOR HAWALA RACKET IN INDIA
Key players: Nand Kishore Chaturvedi and Ashok Mittal. One of the key document could be accessed here: https://www.scribd.com/document/694877440/DOC-20231212-WA0014
(Note: All facts and documents are public and submitted in court. (The purpose of this article is to create public awareness and not target any individual.)
Income Tax is likely to charge Ashok Mittal under the stringent Black Money Act for hiding 450 crores of his income from Indian businesses in off-shore companies and re-routing part of it in hotel Royal Plaza.
By Sudhir Ranjan Sen
#AshokMittal is facing probe under the stringent black money act for allegedly hiding income and assets to tune of Rs 450 crores in off-shore companies and illicit investments in hotel Royal Plaza in 2002, Income Tax had informed Delhi High Court in a recent affidavit justifying opening of a LOC against him. https://www.scribd.com/document/694877440/DOC-20231212-WA0014
The IT department, in a recent affidavit filed in the Delhi High Court where a case is going on the Ashok Mittal's petition to quash LOC opened against him in 2012, following income tax raids, said: "Petitioner's (Ashok Mittal) misleading submission that the department has accepted that the Petitioner, Ashok Mittal, was a Non-Resident in AY 2015-16 to AY2018-19. Petitioner's (Ashok Mittal) submissions before this Hon'ble Court during the hearing dated November 16, 2023, that the Petitioner (Mittal) was a non-resident during AY 2015-16 to AY 2018-19 and that such a position has been accepted by the Department by accepting its income tax returns for the said period, are false and misleading." "The petitioner (Ashok Mittal) has referred to its income tax returns for the said assessment years, where it is the petitioner's (Ashok Mittal) self-declaration that he was a non-resident in the said years. The income tax returns originally were only processed under Section 143(1), and there was no assessment in the case of the assessee on the issue of his claim as a non-resident. However, pursuant to the search proceedings in the petitioner's (ashok mittal) case, the case of the petitioner (ashok mittal) is in the process of being reopened under Section 148 for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19, wherein the respondent (income tax) will reassess his domestic income," it added. https://web.archive.org/web/20240104095528/https://www.ptinews.com/press-detail/IT-claims-Ashok-Mittal-is-a--flight-risk--with-450-crore-undisclosed-overseas-wealth--alleging-his-involvement-with-fugitive-hawala-trader-Nand-Kishore-Chaturvedi-in-a-Rs-50-crore-illicit-investment-in-Hotel-Royal-Plaza-in-2003-/293782
As well as that, the affidavit makes it clear that the respondent (income tax) has concurrent jurisdiction under Sections 3-6 and 10 of the Black Money Act over the petitioner's (Ashok Mittal) hidden foreign assets and income. The Department has also disputed the petitioner's incorrect claim that he was a non-resident during the relevant period, and the Black Money Act proceedings have already begun in his case pursuant to Section 10 of the said Act. This writ petition is about the petitioner's (ashok mittal) wrong claim that he is a non-resident. What is important is the Black Money Act proceedings for the foreign undisclosed income and assets, not the petitioner's (ashok mittal) domestic income. So, it doesn't matter if the Department starts a reassessment proceeding under Section 148 or not; it has nothing to do with the petitioner's (Ashok Mittal) claim as a non-resident and, by extension, it has nothing to do with this writ petition. https://www.outlookindia.com/business-spotlight/delhi-high-court-upholds-loc-black-money-launderer-ashok-mittal-of-hotel-royal-plaza-by-abhinav-sharma-news-334756; https://web.archive.org/web/20240110110654/https://topicsdaily.com/ashok-mittal-and-wanted-hawala-dealer-nandkishore-chaturvedi-invested-in-hotel-royal-plaza-through-hillcrest-an-illicit-foreign-shell-company-according-to-an-it-probe/
It is further submitted that the petitioner (Ashok Mittal) has himself admitted in his statement recorded on October 21, 2022, u/s. 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act that, as per Section 6(1)(c), he fulfills the criteria of being a resident in the country as he was present in India for 60 days in each of the concerned financial years and for 365 days cumulatively in the preceding four AYs of each concerned year. However, he claimed that he is a non-resident based on Explanation 1 to Section 6(1)(c), wherein in case an individual stays outside India for the purpose of employment, instead of 60 days, the condition of 182 days applies in Section 6(1)(c). The petitioner (Ashok Mittal) claimed that he was employed outside India as a manager in the entities in Dubai, viz., Super Gold Trading DMCC, North West Trading FZC, and Danube Trading FZC. This claim is completely incorrect in light of the following two facts: a. Firstly, the Department has sufficient information from material seized during the search that the petitioner (Ashok Mittal) is the owner of these entities and not an employee. He went to Dubai as an investor and owner of his companies and not as an employee; and b. Secondly, the petitioner (Ashok Mittal), in his statement recorded on January 21, 2022, under Section 13(lA) of the Income Tax Act, admitted that he went to Dubai on a long-term investor visa and not an employment visa. The above makes it evident that the claim of the petitioner (Ashok Mittal) that it was non-resident in the aforementioned AY is completely incorrect and contrary to the provisions of law. https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/i-t-dept-raids-hotel-royal-plazas-chairman-for-stashing-rs-40-crore-abroad20220723165115
1..https://
posted by AshokMittalPlaza @ January 18, 2024
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home