TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 722
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner has originally purchased land to an extent of around Ac.58.27 gts., in Siri Nagar, Bhoopalpally and an extent of Ac.64-8.5 gts., in Pedda Pendyal. Most of the lands are situated in a radius of 7-10 kms. from the District headquarters. After purchase of the said agricultural land, the Company applied for conversion of such agricultural land into non-agricultural land to the competent authorities. After conversion of said lands into non-agricultural lands, the Company applied to the competent authorities and obtained permission for development of such non-agricultural land into layout of plots for residential/commercial housing. The plots of land were purchased by the 1st petitioner for development into lay-outs of about 60/80/100 feet abutting state/national highways. To realize the full potential of the plots of land purchased, the 1st petitioner has retained around 25% of the total land being developed into lay-outs for construction of high-rise apartments for residential/commercial purposes, once the lay-out and the surrounding areas are further developed. Since the land on which high rise buildings would be constructed would fetch a higher price, the 1st petitioner has a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....complained to the 1st respondent making false allegations that the 1st petitioner is collecting deposits from general public in an unauthorized manner. On the basis of the said complaint, the Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, ordered for inspection of the books of accounts of the 1st petitioner under Section 206 (5) of the Companies Act, 2013. A letter was issued to the 1st petitioner on 29.03.2019 advising to keep the books and accounts ready and an Inspecting Officer had visited the registered office premises on 27.06.2019. Pursuant to inspection of books of accounts under Section 206 (5) of the Companies Act, 2013, the Regional Director, South East Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, issued preliminary findings vide Letter, dated 26.07.2019 alleging violation of certain provisions of the Act including violations under Section 73 of the Act. The 1st petitioner issued reply to the said finding vide letter, dated 19.08.2019. Subsequently, an Inspection report, dated 26.09.2019 was forwarded by the Regional Director (SER) to the Director General of Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Without giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, the 1st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and that the 1st respondent has further noted that transactions were concluded in respect of certain transactions where money was received in full. He also submits that the 1st respondent has acted on whimsical complaints of one Gurazala Venkateswarlu, who had foisted many complaints against the 1st petitioner, and filed many Writ Petitions before this Court, without any basis. He further submits that Rule (2) (1) (c) (xii) (b) of the Rules clearly excludes amount received as an advance for sale of immovable property from the purview of deposits. Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the 1st petitioner has been collecting money as advance for sale of property and paying interest on such advances and refunding money without actual sale of such properties. As a result of which, Rule 2 (1) (c) (xii) (b) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 is attracted to term such advance money collected as "Deposits". It is stated that since the advance money collected by the 1st petitioner company as consideration for an immovable property under an agreement of arrangement (M.O.U.), if such advance is not adjusted against such property in accordance with the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitions were filed seeking a direction against the Income Tax Department, Enforcement Directorate, Central Bureau of Investigation, local police and various other authorities. The petitioner appears to have withdrawn some of those writ petitions after advancing arguments. Despite noting this, this Court took a lenient view and merely closed W.P.No.11301 of 2016 and batch, lastly on 19.07.2016, after making certain observations. 4. After this Court closed the last of the series of writ petitions on 19.07.2016, there appears to have been an income tax raid on 07.04.2017 and 08.04.2017 in the premises of the 6th respondent Company. Upon seeing news items in the print and electronic media that a few crores had been recovered during the raids, the petitioner got motivated once again, commenced war against the respondents and has come up with the present writ petition. But, as we have pointed out earlier, the writ Court is not intended for people to settle private scores. The war launched by the petitioner has gone unabated from the year 2011 for the past six years. Every Court has taken a lenient view, even while dismissing the writ petitions of the petitioner, which has perhaps embo....