<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (12) TMI 614 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401815</link>
    <description>At the stage of framing charge in a disproportionate assets prosecution, the court applies the test of grave suspicion rather than proof of ultimate guilt, so alleged assets, expenditure, bank balances and income material may justify proceeding under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Income tax returns and assessments do not by themselves conclusively prove lawful source of funds. On the son&#039;s role, witness statements and financial linkage were treated as sufficient to raise a prima facie case of abetment or conspiracy, particularly where he had attained majority for a substantial part of the check period. Protection under the Special Bearer Bonds Act did not bar prosecution for corruption-linked offences, and the charges were left to stand for trial.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:44:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=630455" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 614 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401815</link>
      <description>At the stage of framing charge in a disproportionate assets prosecution, the court applies the test of grave suspicion rather than proof of ultimate guilt, so alleged assets, expenditure, bank balances and income material may justify proceeding under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Income tax returns and assessments do not by themselves conclusively prove lawful source of funds. On the son&#039;s role, witness statements and financial linkage were treated as sufficient to raise a prima facie case of abetment or conspiracy, particularly where he had attained majority for a substantial part of the check period. Protection under the Special Bearer Bonds Act did not bar prosecution for corruption-linked offences, and the charges were left to stand for trial.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>