HC quashes magistrate's order on NBW against actor
Mumbai:
Bombay High Court
quashed and set aside a magistrate's order that issued a
non-bailable warrant
against actor
Arjun Rampal
in a 2019
tax evasion case
.
"On a perusal of the said order, it is clear that no reasons are recorded. In my view, this would cause prejudice to the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances as he would face an order of non-bailable warrant in a case of bailable offence," said
Justice Advait Sethna
on May 16.
Rampal challenged the April 9 order of the additional chief metropolitan magistrate, Ballard Pier. An advocate had sought his exemption from appearance, but the magistrate rejected the application, observing that the accused failed to comply with bail provisions.
Justice Sethna noted that under Section 276 C (2) (wilful attempt to evade tax etc) of the Income Tax Act, the maximum sentence is only three years and the offence is bailable in nature. The magistrate, "not taking into consideration such position, has mechanically passed the order...in a bailable offence." He also "overlooked" the advocate's presence. "In such circumstances, such order would be contrary to law," added Justice Sethna.
tnn
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
20 hours ago
- Time of India
Hyd IT employees in the dock for fake political donation claims
Hyderabad: The income tax department has uncovered a massive pattern of dubious political donation claims allegedly made by salaried professionals and business owners, primarily from the IT sector, aiming to illegally claim refunds under section 80GGC of the Income Tax Act. Over 400 tech employees in Hyderabad have now been served notices for allegedly declaring inflated or bogus donations to political parties—some even claiming to have donated sums equal to or exceeding their annual salaries. What began as isolated cases has now snowballed into one of the largest personal tax deduction scams under the guise of political funding, placing Hyderabad alongside metros like Mumbai, Delhi, and Bengaluru in a fast-widening national probe. In a single financial year, individuals across India reportedly claimed over ₹10,000 crore as deductions under section 80GGC, which allows tax breaks for donations made to political parties. While the provision is legal and has no upper limit, officials say the absence of safeguards has opened the door to large-scale misuse. Many of the flagged claims, particularly in Hyderabad, were made in the name of registered political parties and registered unrecognised political parties. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với mức chênh lệch giá thấp nhất IC Markets Đăng ký Undo Upon reconciliation, tax officials found that several individuals had declared donation amounts that were double or more than what the political parties actually received, raising serious questions about the authenticity of the transactions. "This is not just tax evasion—it's identity laundering using political donations," said a senior official. "We are not only looking at individuals but also at the network of entities that enabled these fraudulent claims," he said. Cheques in, cash out The modus operandi appears both simple and deceptive. In numerous cases, individuals reportedly issued cheques to shell entities posing as political parties and later received the money back in cash. These transactions were then falsely reported as political donations in tax returns—entitling the individual to a deduction and, in many cases, a significant tax refund. In some instances, software employees were found to have issued cheques to known third party entities and then claimed those as political donations in their IT returns. In Hyderabad alone, during a Feb 2025 probe (reported by TOI), the income tax department unearthed a ₹110 crore refund racket involving employees from 36 software companies. Many had claimed inflated political donations and received refunds based on falsified documentation. Unusual donation patterns According to internal data, there has been a 10-fold increase in 80GGC claims between 2016–17 and 2021–22. A growing number of these declarations showed individuals claiming political donations worth 10–100% of their total income—a pattern that the department now flags as a critical risk indicator. In Telangana and Andhra Pradesh alone, 400 high-risk cases have been identified between FY 2023–24 and 2024–25. Some Hyderabad tech employees received notices after declaring donations exceeding ₹10 lakh. Officials have flagged 30 entities, including shell firms and little-known outfits, for allegedly facilitating these inflated claims. 6.5L taxpayers under lens Nationwide, 6.5 lakh individuals, mostly salaried professionals and small business owners, are under the scanner for making suspicious claims under Section 80GGC. The top 10%, based on the donation-to-income ratio, have been placed under special audit scrutiny. To encourage voluntary compliance, the IT department has extended the returns correction window from two to four years. In Telangana, helpdesks have been set up in tech firms, and outreach programmes have been launched across 100 companies to educate employees about the risks of fake donation claims, including penalties, prosecution, and refund recovery. So far, 15% of those flagged in earlier phases have updated their returns and corrected their donation claims. Tax officials are now urging others to do the same before enforcement action begins. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
Court denies bail to lawyer booked for ‘fabricating Bombay HC orders, swindling Rs 2.5 crore from woman'
A sessions court in Mumbai has rejected the bail application of a lawyer booked for allegedly swindling Rs 2.57 crore from a woman by fabricating orders of the Bombay High Court. The accused, Vinay Kumar Khatu, 42, was arrested by the Azad Maidan police in South Mumbai in October last year. 'In this case, the applicant is a practising lawyer with standing of more than 20 years. I presume that he knows and understands the sanctity of his profession and the services he rendered to society and his clients. The allegations against the applicant are very serious,' Additional Sessions Judge V G Raghuvanshi said in the order dated June 3. The complainant in the case said that she had engaged Khatu as a lawyer in 12 cases related to her personal and property matters. The First Information Report (FIR) stated that the accused told her that he had filed appeals in the pending cases before the high court and informed her in 2022 that two cases had been decided in her favour, seeking fees from her in each of the pending cases, and inducing the woman by showing the favourable orders. When she subsequently tried to look for the orders on the high court website, she failed to find them and filed the FIR in 2024. Denying that he had given her any fabricated order, Khatu claimed that the complainant is a 'seasoned litigant' and this was her way to avoid paying professional fees to advocates. The court, rejecting Khatu's plea, said there was prima facie proof in terms of a WhatsApp chat against him. The court held that previously, two offences were filed against Khatu for misrepresenting himself as an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer. It took into consideration that people engage lawyers because they do not understand court procedures or the nature of orders and laws. It added that using its discretion to grant bail to the accused in the case would send a 'wrong message' to society, considering the seriousness of the allegations.
India Today
2 days ago
- India Today
Bombay High Court stays demolition around Malegaon's Bhoikot fort till June 17
The Bombay High Court has directed the Malegaon administration in Nashik district of Maharashtra to not take any coercive action against people occupying land around an ancient fort 'Bhoikot killa' in Malegaon. In their order, the bench of Justices Gauri Godse and Somasekhar Sundaresan said, 'Until 17th June 2025, no coercive action to be taken to demolish the petitioners' structures or evict the petitioners.'advertisementThe petitioners had approached the court challenging a Government Resolution (GR) dated January 20, 2025 issued by the Tourism and Cultural Affairs Department of the Maharashtra government under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains the GR, the Maharashtra government has directed the district administrations across the state to demolish all illegal structures in and around 47 forts protected by the Central government and 62 forts protected by the state. Under the GR, a committee headed by the district collector was to be constituted which had to submit a report on whether the recognised forts are encroached on or not. After the assessment, the unauthorised encroachments had to be removed. Recently, the local administration issued a notice to Shakeel Ahmed Fateh Mohammed (who is also the petitioner) and others living around the fort. The petitioner claimed that there were over 300 families living around the fort. The petitioners stated that they have documentary proof to state that they have been living in their homes around the fort for the last 40 years and their structures have already been regularised by the local Manisha Desai, appearing for the petitioners, pointed out that a Gymkhana and school are already running inside the archaeological site and no action has been taken against the same. However, the action is initiated only against the occupants who are outside the archaeological Government Pleader PP Kakade appearing for the state, took time to take instructions, but pointed out that the homes for rehabilitation of families have already been constructed and the families only have to pay Rs 20,000 and take possession. It is only after the rehabilitation is done that the demolition of illegal construction around the fort will be the court said that people undergoing rehabilitation shouldn't have to pay for taking possession of their new homes. The matter will be heard again by the court on June Watch
