Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
HC determined the petitioner was entitled to release of Rs.15.90 lakhs realized from share sales. The court found the petitioner genuinely placed shares for sale through Respondent No. 2, with fraud occurring at Respondent's end through Amit Jain and potentially Ashish Aggarwal Jain. No evidence implicated the petitioner in the fraudulent transaction. Despite inconsistencies in the petitioner's statements regarding share numbers, the court acknowledged the petitioner's ownership of the sold shares. The amount was ordered released on superdari subject to furnishing a guarantee of equivalent value, with no final determination on actual ownership pending adjudication on merits.
HC determined the petitioner was entitled to release of Rs.15.90 lakhs realized from share sales. The court found the petitioner genuinely placed shares for sale through Respondent No. 2, with fraud occurring at Respondent's end through Amit Jain and potentially Ashish Aggarwal Jain. No evidence implicated the petitioner in the fraudulent transaction. Despite inconsistencies in the petitioner's statements regarding share numbers, the court acknowledged the petitioner's ownership of the sold shares. The amount was ordered released on superdari subject to furnishing a guarantee of equivalent value, with no final determination on actual ownership pending adjudication on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
