9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Respondent No. 7 shows that the matter is within the knowledge of the authorities and considering the fact that no adverse proceedings have been initiated by the IT Department, it is opined that no further directions are required in this petition. Further, in view of the fact that an earlier petition in SH ANKUR GUPTA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [ 2022 (3) TMI 1599 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and SLP ANKUR GUPTA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS [ 2022 (8) TMI 1514 - SC ORDER] filed by the same Petitioner against common Respondent No. 16 has been dismissed on the finding that the same is motivated, it is opined that entertaining the present PIL at the behest of the Petitioner does not advance the cause of justice and the objective behind entertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsfer has been done to cause loss to the public exchequer. It is stated that even though Respondent No. 8 was an asset rich Company, however, its shares were transferred by Respondent No. 7 in favour of Respondent No. 9 at a value less than the market price. 2.1. It is stated that the representation dated 14th September, 2023 addressed to the statutory authorities including the Income Tax Department has not seen any result. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement Directorate (ED), Income Tax Authorities and Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to investigate the transactions of allotment of shares by Respondent No. 8 and its subsequent transfer in favour of Respondent No. 9. 2.2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e states that Respondent No. 7 in its reply dated 25th March, 2022 duly explained the transaction of sale and the basis of the valuation. He states that IT Department carried out block assessment for last seven years. He states that assessment orders have been passed by the IT Department for the said period and as is apparent from the said orders, the IT Department was satisfied with the explanation furnished by the Respondent No. 7. He states that since the IT Department has already examined the allegations of evasion of taxes, therefore, it stands negated. He states that no adverse proceedings have been initiated against Respondent No. 7 despite conducting a block assessment. 3.2. He states that Respondent No. 8 was drowning in debt and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
