Reliance Industries conspired to Commit Offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, casting shadow on monies sought to be offered to Income Tax: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]

Reliance Industries - Prevention Of Corruption Act - Casting Shadow - Monies - Income Tax - Bombay HC - Taxscan

The Bombay High Court held that the Reliance Industries conspired to commit offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, casting shadow on monies sought to be offered to Income tax.

The Petitioner originally filed the petition challenging the communication dated 25th January 2021 withdrawing the earlier communication dated 21st October 2020 issued by the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. By this communication dated 21st October 2020, petitioner was informed that they are eligible for resolution of tax disputes under the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020. According to the petitioner, relying on this communication petitioner had filed several applications for resolution of tax disputes. It is the petitioner’s case that the stand of respondents is contrary to the plain language of Section 9(c) of the DTVSV Act.

Petitioner is desirous of availing the benefit of DTVSV Act with respect to certain pending income tax litigations before various appellate levels. By an application dated 15th April 2020, petitioner sought clarification from the revenue with respect to its eligibility under the DTVSV Act.

A sper the chargesheet there was a wrongful loss of Rs. 147.71 crore to National Insurance Co. Limited and Corresponding wrongful gain to Reliance Industries Ltd. It is further revealed that claims amounting to Rs. 98.28 crore under both the policies are outstanding.

It would be evident that petitioner is charged with having conspired, inter alia, to commit acts of corruption which are punishable under the PC Act and hence, ex facie, there is a shadow of illegality on the money sought to be offered to tax. Thus, petitioner is not eligible under the DTVSV Act.

The division bench of Justice Amit B.Borkar and Justice K.R.Shriram held that the proceedings are cases where prosecution was instituted since in both cases an FIR had been duly lodged. Both cases charge the petitioner as having conspired to commit offences under the PC Act, thus casting a shadow on the monies sought to be offered to tax.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

taxscan-loader