TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1584
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,45,40,437/- by stating that the addition should be restricted to proportionate amount of beneficial shareholding held by the assessee in both foreign companies, which is 1 by 1000 shares, and ignoring the finding of the AO that the entry of Sh. Alhammadi, U.A.E. is nothing but to cover up of whole investment of the assessee and the assessee is the beneficial owner of the deposits as appearing in the foreign bank accounts of the above stated entities. Accordingly, the entities and their bank accounts were solely operated by the assessee during the relevant period. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,45,40,437/- as the assessee had not declared the foreign assets even after the opportunity provided by the Govt. of India before the promulgation of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. 3. That the order of the CIT (A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law." BMA No.02/D/2025, AY 2018-19 (Revenue Appeal): ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the addition of Rs. 31,45,40,437/- and thereby limiting the penalty u/s 41 of the BMA to 3 times of tax of Rs. 3,14,855/- as the assessee had not declared the foreign assets even after the opportunity provided by the Govt. of India before the promulgation of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. 3. That the order of the CIT(A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law." BMA No.06/D/2024, AY 2018-19 (Assessee Appeal): Assesseein its appealraised the following grounds: 1. "That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in not appreciating that the foreign entities in question were struck off in the year 2010 and 2011 as also the bank accounts in relation to the said entities being closed in the year 2009 and 2010, the provisions of the Black Money Act, being applicable from AY 2016-17 and onwards, the same cannot be applied retrospectively to assets having ceased to exist prior to the promulgation of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not recognizing that the AO assumed jurisdiction under Section 10(1) of the Black Money Act without satisfying the mandatory ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vestment for acquiring that I share" is contrary to his own findings that "that the statements recorded prior to the date of search under section 131 of the Act by the Investigation Wing as well as during the course of search u/s 132(4) of the Act, categorically established the version of the appellant that the aforesaid foreign companies were incorporated and owned by Mr. Alhammadi." 9. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the finding that "the appellant was not able to conclusively establish the source of investment for acquiring that I share" is also contrary to his own findings that "the appellant being a meagre shareholder, had no control or link with the source of investment in the foreign companies or utilization of fund, to be called beneficiary thereof." 10. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the finding that "the appellant was not able to conclusively establish the source of investment for acquiring that I share" is contrary to the facts on record which show that assets held by the companies were specifically earmarked as belonging to Mr. Alhammadi and at the time of closure of bank accounts fun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vely establish the source of investment for acquiring that I share" is contrary to the facts on record as also the own finding of the CIT(A), thus the proceedings u/s 41 being consequential is also based on erroneous finding of fact. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that use of the word "may" in Section 41 clearly indicates that the imposition of such a penalty is not mandatory. The Assessing Officer would need to independent apply mind as to the addition made in the quantum order, justifying the imposition of penalty. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the underlying addition in the quantum order u/s 10(3) as also the addition sustained by the Ld.CIT(A), being based on mere estimation, penalty cannot be mechanically initiated and/or imposed." 2. Brief facts are that the aforesaid appeals have been filed in connection with assessment order dated 01.08.2019 passed under section 10(3) of the Black Money (Undisclosed and Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the BMA") assessing undisclosed foreign income/assets of the assessee at Rs. 31,48,55,300/- an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom International Consortium of Investigative Journalism (ICIJ) about assessee having interest in, inter alia, certain foreign companies incorporated in British Virgin Islands ("BVI"). Based on the aforesaid information so received, the Income Tax Authorities initiated investigation and enquiries through first summon dated 29.07.2013, issued under section 131(1A) of the IT Act. Thereafter, multiple summons dated 23.12.2015, 12.01.2016 and 26.04.2016 were issued and inquiries were conducted, in response to which, statement of the assessee was recorded and the assessee explained the rationale behind incorporation of foreign companies in joint venture with a foreign national i.e. Mr. Alhammadi and that he was nominated by him as a nominal shareholder of the main company i.e. Alabama Assets Limited, of 1 out of 1000 shares, where the remaining shareholding of 999 out of 1000 shares were held by the said foreign national i.e. Mr Alhammadi and the entire funds in that company were either contributed by him or by entities at his behest without any contribution even for one share by the assessee. The assessee furnished contemporaneous evidences in respect of his explanation, which are tabu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erein the affidavit of Mr Alhammadi was found along with financial statements of aforementioned foreign entities; letter dated 17.05.2016 of Mr Alhammadi along with the courier dated 17.05.2016 and certificate of incumbency of the aforementioned entities. Statement under section 132(4) of the IT Act was recorded on 22.12.2017 wherein the assessee reiterated that all investments were made by Mr Alhammadi. On 15.02.2018, another statement of assessee was recorded under section 132(4) of the IT Act wherein materials found during search and seizure were confronted to the assessee. The assessee also shared text messages to and from Mr Alhammadi dated 14.02.2018 where Mr Alhammadi refused to share financial of the companies as also other documents stating that he had already done enough for the assessee. The IT Department kept the search proceedings in abeyance and proceeded to initiate action on the assessee invoking the provisions of Black Money Act (BMA). Accordingly, on 20.02.2018, a notice under section 10(1) of BMA was issued to the assessee. On 26.03.2018, reply was filed by the assessee to the notice issued under section 10(1) of BMA raising several jurisdictional issues and also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as "Imprest A/c" to incur initial expenses. 6. On 28.08.2018, summons under section 131(1A) of the IT Act was issued by the Learned ACIT to the assessee, to which reply letter dated 29.10.2018 was filed by the assessee on 30.10.2018. Income Tax Department made further enquiries with regard to the aforesaid information by making reference to Government of Foreign Countries through FT & TR - Division of CBDT by virtue of the power available for exchange of information contained in respective DTAA entered with India, pursuant to section 90 of the IT Act, which revealed as under:- a) Company's books of accounts, records, resolution etc are maintained at 6, Temasek Boulevard no. 09-05, Sutac Tower Four Singapore-038986, not at U.A.E. office of Sh. Alhammadi. b) The Company's Resolution provided in response to FT & TR by BVI revealed that companies were formed for investment purpose not for purpose of lighting business. c) Sh. Deepak Jain Claimed that he was introduced to Mr Alhammadi through one Mr Amit Sharma. It was categorically asked to produce Sh. Amit Sharma vide note sheet entry dated 28.02.2019, but assessee Deepak Jain never produced amit Sharma f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e filed both by the Revenue and the assessee against the decision of CIT(A) to the extent adverse to the assessee and Revenue. The Revenue primarily challenged the relief granted by the CIT(A) by deleting the additions made in the assessment order amounting to Rs. 31,48,55,300/- and the corresponding reliefs granted on account of deletion of penalties imposed under section(s) 41 to 43 of BMA, whereas the assessee filed appeal against the action of CIT(A) in dismissing the jurisdictional and legal ground raised by the assessee as also confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 3,14,855/- made by the CIT(A) holding the appellant to be beneficial owner for the proportionate amount of credits in the bank account of the foreign company and sustaining corresponding proportionate addition of penalty sustained under section 41 of the BMA, through various Grounds of Appeal. 12. In the course of hearing, the Ld DR mainly relied upon the assessment order and justified the action of the AO in making the impugned addition in the hands of the assessee for the following reasons: i) The assessee despite knowing that the income tax department is aware of the existence of two foreign e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... events commencing from investigation proceedings under section 131 of I.T. Act, search under section 132 of the I.T. Act and initiation and conclusion of proceedings under section 10 of BMA are explained in the accompanying Chart of Dates attached as Annexure-A. On perusal of the accompanying chart of dates, it would be seen that, the event of incorporation of companies and bank accounts commenced in 2005, in partnership with Mr. Alahammadi, but for want of actual take off of the joint venture project, the companies and bank account were closed in the year 2009 to 2010. In other words, it is emphasized that neither the companies or shareholding of the assessee in such companies or bank accounts of foreign companies were in existence at the time of promulgation of BMA on 01.07.2015 or initiation of proceedings under section 10 of BMA on 20.02.2018. Further, it can be seen that the Revenue Authorities were in the possession of information relating to some link of assessee with the foreign companies way back in 2013 (possibly including the information received pursuant to exchange of information as per DTAA) inasmuch as the first summon was issued under section 131(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e alternate remedies are available to a litigant, (being the Revenue Authorities in the present case), doctrine of election or theory of approbate and reprobate comes into play, which provides that if the litigant has consciously chosen one option out of alternate and parallelremedies available in law and making the opposite party to believe of him pursuing such remedy, the first party cannot subsequently change the option or stand. Attention, in this regard, is invited to the following decisions of the Courts, where the aforesaid doctrine of election/approbate and reprobate, which would squarely be applicable to the tax authorities, in the situation of present kind, has been explained in the following manner: a. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Hiralal Alias Hiranand vs Commissioner of Customs and Ors. 2013 SCC Online Cal 17620 dated 19.09.2013 observed as under: 26. The doctrine of election applies to cases when a man as against another has two alternative but mutually exclusive courses to resort to and he is to make an election between the two. If he by his conduct induces the other man to believe that he is pursuing a certain course leaving asid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2000 SCC OnLine Del 1010 observed as under: 7. Thus when the petitioner could not be permitted to file writ petition again, challenging his dismissal, on fresh grounds he could not be permitted to achieve this by invoking some other remedy. What cannot be done directly would not be permitted to be done indirectly. Matter can be looked into from another angle also. When more than one forum are available to the petitioner to challenge a particular order and he elects to choose one forum, thereafter he is precluded from choosing other for a for same cause of action. This is popularly known as 'Doctrine of Election' which is based on the maxim "that a person cannot approbate or reprobate at the same time This same principle is stated in White and Tudor's Leading Cases in Equity Vol. 1 and Eds. at page 444 as follows:- "Election is the obligation imposed upon a party by Courts of equity to choose between two inconsistent or alternative rights or claims in cases where there is clear intention of the person from whom he derives one that he should not enjoy both.'' ............. 10. It is totally misconceived on the part of the petitioner to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es under the Act? Answer: In respect of such assets which have been duly declared in good faith under the tax compliance but not found eligible, he shall not be hit by section 72(c) of the Act and no action lies in respect of such assets under the Act. However, such information may be used for the purpose of the Incometax Act. Question No. 16: In respect of the undisclosed foreign assets referred to in answer to question No. 15 above, where the proceedings under the Income-tax Act are initiated, can the options of settlement commission etc. under the Income-tax Act be availed in respect of such assets? Answer: All the provisions of the Income-tax Act shall be applicable in respect of those assets. The aforesaid legal position, in our respectful submission, reinforces the aforesaid Doctrine of Election, inasmuch as, it has been clarified that if an assessee is declined amnesty under BMA for want of pending proceedings under I.T. Act, then it has been made mandatory for the tax authorities to complete assessment of foreign income/asset under I.T. Act and not BMA. It is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid theory has even been applied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e at the same time, namely before the Settlement Commission to take a stand that the undisclosed foreign income and assets are governed by the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961, for the relevant years in respect of which the proceedings were pending before the Settlement Commission, and now to take a somersault and say that the Settlement Commission had no jurisdiction to decide the applications under section 245C. The relevant extract of the judgement is produced as under: 42. In the present case, upon receipt of the application made under section 245C of the IT Act, the Settlement Commission has proceeded further in accordance with the provisions of section 245D of the IT Act. At the stage when it was brought to its notice that notices under section 10 of the Black Money Act had been issued to the contesting respondents, the Settlement Commission gave ample opportunity to the revenue to decide as to what course of action it wants to adopt, and it was the revenue which categorically invited an order from the Settlement Commission in respect of the undisclosed foreign income and assets disclosed before it. From the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he IT Act and the Settlement Commission jurisdiction to decide the applications under section 245C of the IT Act in respect of the income disclosed therein. In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that, considering the facts of the present case, where the Revenue chose to proceed against the assessee under the I.T. Act, even after promulgation of BMA on 01.07.2015, despite being vested with substantial powers for investigation and inquiries in terms of section 8 of BMA, and having conducted the extraordinary measure available to the Revenue by way of search under section 132 of the IT Act. the Revenue, in our respectful submission, could not have subsequently changed the original choice/stand of proceedings and assessing the assessee under I.T. Act, to thereafter initiate and complete proceedings under BMA, probably for the reason that assessment meet BMA was either preferential to the Revenue or more draconian for the assessee. Thus, the aforesaid change in stand, in our respectful submission, was in teeth of the aforesaid doctrine of election or theory of approbate and reprobate. Therefore, the initiation of such proceedings under BMA was beyond jurisdiction a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n assessee was prohibited from declaring undisclosed foreign asset located outside India and acquired in any previous year prior to AY 2016-17, if the Tax Department had received any information from the competent authority by virtue of clauses relating to exchange of information contained in DTAA entered with a foreign country by virtue of the power available under section 90 of the I.T. Act. In facts of the present case, it can be seen that the Revenue Authorities were in possession of information relating to assessee's financial interest in the disputed foreign companies way-back in 2013, since repeated summons were issued commencing from 29.07.2013. 36. In view of the above, the assessee was under the bona-fide impression that the Revenue had received information pursuant to FT & TR reference and was not therefore eligible for aforementioned Amnesty Scheme and had even requested to be provided with information received, as can be gathered from the following extracts of reply dated 26.03.2018, filed during the course of assessment proceedings, which is reproduced hereunder: ......................................... Therefore, it is requested t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act. This implies that information in possession of the Central Government prior to the coming into force of the Act has to be dealt as per the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, all such cases where information was already available with the Central Government prior to coming into force of the Act. Therefore, as a corollary, any information with respect to undisclosed foreign income or asset, if it came to the possession of the Central Government prior to 01/07/2015, cannot be utilized either for relief through a voluntary declaration or for punitive action by framing an assessment under section 10(2) of the Act. ........................................." While the Revenue did not make available any of the aforesaid information requested or the source of such information, but it can be seen from the following relevant extracts of the assessment order at Para 3(c) that the Revenue had obtained information pursuant to FT & TR reference, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: Further, the statement of Sh. Deepak Jain and submission of Mr. Alhammadi are nothing but blatant lie. Reliance is placed on the reply to FT& TR reference....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....romulgation of the BMA on 1.7.2015, the said Act had no applicability on the assessee for the following reasons: At the outset, attention is invited to Section 1(3) of the BMA which expressly mandates prospective applicability of the BMA to provide that "Save as otherwise provided in this Act, it shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 2015". Further Section 2(11) of the Act defines the term "undisclosed foreign asset" to mean an asset located outside India held by the assessee in his name or in respect of which the assessee is the beneficial owner and the assessee offers no explanation about the source of investment in such asset. The use of the words "located", "is" and "held" in the said definition underscores the legislative intent that the provisions of the BMA apply only on assets held on commencement of the said Act as on 01.07.2015. For the meaning of word 'is', reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi v. M/s Nestle SA. [Civil Appeal No. 1420 of 2023], where the Hon'ble Court interpreted the use of word 'is' as occurring in Clause IV(2) of the India Ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is" has a present signification and it derives meaning from the context. Given this interpretation, the conclusion is that when a third party country enters into DTAA with India, it should be a member of OECD, for the earlier treaty beneficiary to claim parity." Reference is also made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of F.S. Gandhi vs. CWT: 184 ITR 34, wherein the word 'is' to be used in present case. Thus, in light of the above, triggering of sec. 2(11) of the Act is contingent upon an assessee currently holding the undisclosed foreign asset or being a beneficiary of the aforementioned asset, at least at the time of the promulgation of the BMA as on 1.7.2015. Further section 3(1) of the Act seeks to charge tax on the undisclosed foreign income and assets of the relevant previous year starting on or after April 1,2016. The Proviso to the section, specifically addresses the taxation of undisclosed foreign assets, allowing for their value to be taxed in the year in which such assets come to the notice of the Assessing Officer. Reference for the aforesaid interpretation of the Proviso can also be made to the "REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applicability of BMA, on such asset, is limited to the assets which could have been disclosed under the aforementioned voluntary declaration scheme contained in Chapter-VI. If the assessee was prohibited from the declaration under the scheme by virtue of bar section contained in section 71 or no foreign asset located outside India, having been disposed much prior to promulgation of the Act and consequently, the benefit of declaration scheme not being available to such assessee, the deeming fiction containing any section 72(c) shall not be applicable. In facts of the present case, the assessee was clearly outside the ambit of declaration scheme for twin reasons viz; (i) the asset having been ceased to exist in year 2009 / 2010 much prior to promulgation of BMA as on 01.07.2015 and therefore could not be said to be holding any undisclosed asset located outside India" within the meaning of section 2(11) enabling it to make in declaration and pay tax thereon under section 59 of the BMA, and (ii) the assessee being clearly prohibited to avail the aforesaid benefit by virtue of bar contained in section 71(d)(iii) in the manner explained supra. In view of the above, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k balance as on particular date, akin to method of valuation prescribed for other assets. By adopting the method of valuation by taking all credits in bank account without any cap on the date of credit or nature of credit, the receipts in the bank account are indirectly sought to be taxed in the guise of valuation of asset, which will extend beyond the substantive provision of Rule 3(1)(e) read with section 2(11) of the Act, which only brings to charge the value of the asset. As regards income, as pointed supra, the charge of tax is clearly prospective w.e.f. AY 2016-17. It may be pertinent to point out, while the Ld. DR did not refer to any case laws on the controversy of the retrospective applicability or definition of undisclosed foreign asset contained in section 2(11), however, in all fairness it may be pertinent to refer to the following decisions, which may have some applicability on the present controversy, but are not applicable for the reasons mentioned herein below: (i) Union of India vs Gautam Khaitan., [2020] 420 ITR 140 (SC) The Black Money Act was originally stated to come into force on 1st April 2016, but this was preponed to 1st ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....haitan [2019] 110 taxmann.com 272/[2020] 420 ITR 140/10 SCC 108 considering the tenor of the Act has held as follows: 15. It could therefore be seen that where no declaration in respect of the asset covered under the Black Money Act is made, such asset would be deemed to have been acquired or made in the year in which a notice under Section 10 is issued by the assessing officer and the provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly. 16. The offences in respect of which sanction has been granted are under Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act, which read thus: ................. 17. Section 50 provides that if any person, being a resident other than not ordinarily resident in India, who has furnished the return of income for any previous year under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, willfully fails to furnish in such return any information relating to an asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, held by a beneficial owner or otherwise or in which he was a beneficiary, at any time during such previous year, or disclose any income from a source outside India, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 59 of the Black Money Act. By doing so, the assessees, who desired to take the' benefit of one time opportunity, could have made declaration prior to 30.9.2015 and paid the tax and penalty prior to 31.12.2015. 20. It would further be relevant to note that sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Black Money Act, itself provides that save as otherwise provided in this Act, it shall come into force on 1st day of July, 2015. A conjoint reading of the various provisions would reveal that the assessing officer can charge the taxes only from the assessment year commencing on or after 1-4-2016. However, the value of the said asset has to be as per its valuation in the previous year. As such, even if there was no change of date in sub section (3) of Section 1 of the Black Money Act, the value of the asset was to be determined as per its valuation in the previous year. The date has been changed only for the purpose of enabling the assessee(s) to take benefit of Section 59 of the Black Money Act. The power has been exercised only in order to remove difficulties. The penal provisions under Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act would come into play only when an assessee has fail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herein the Hon'ble Courts have held that where the decision of the coordinate bench is per-incuriam i.e in ignorance of law, the same may be deviated. g. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited vs Governor, State of Orissa., (2015) 2 SCC 189 h. State of UP &Anr. vs Synthetic and Chemical Limited., (1991) 4 SCC 139 i. Shiv Kumar &Anr. vs UOI., (2019) 10 SCC 229 Further, the aforesaid decision was rendered prior to the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nestle (supra) where the interpretation given to the word "is" aligns with interpretation of the said word for the purposes of definition of undisclosed foreign asset located outside India contained in section 2(ii), the benefit of which was not available to the Mumbai Tribunal in the aforementioned decision. In view of the above, it is submitted that, the assessing officer erred in making the impugned addition by initiating proceedings under section 10 of BMA. vs hieh deserves to be quashed. B. Merits: I. Company is distinct from the shareholders It is relevant to note that a BVI company is a legal personality, separate and distinct from its members. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he above, credits in bank account of foreign company cannot be automatically deemed as undisclosed foreign income / assets of the assessee- shareholder (that, too, of 1 out of 1000 shares by piercing the corporate veil of such company. Attention, in this regard, is invited to Rule 3(1)(c), of the Valuation Rules, 2015 prescribed for valuation of foreign assets under BMA which specifically provides method of valuation of foreign asset being shares in a foreign company. Thus, the law also recognizes distinct entity of shareholders and the company and in case of foreign asset being company, it is only the value of shares, at best, that can be added in the hands of assessee in India and not the credits in bank account of such company, be deemed as income of the assessee. Reference in this regard may also be made to the following: (a) The Delhi High Court in the judgment dated 24.09.2014 in Crl. A. No.630/2008 (Rakesh Jain vs. Union of India) held that "where contravention is by a company, liability cannot be fastened on its Directors if the company itself is not proceeded against." (b) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Trave....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further submitted that the Place of Effective Management (POEM) of the said foreign company is also situated outside India because of which, the company is a nonresident in India within the meaning of section 6 of the income tax act and none of the assets were liable to be taxed in India [Reliance was made to the CBDT circular dated 23-2-2017 bearing Circular No. 08/2017], Based on these clarifications by Board that in no view of the manner can taxability arise in the present case even on POEM and that the entire edifice of the case is wholly unjust and illegal. 38.4 Even as per the Income-tax Act, 1961 and for all purposes of the assessment, a company is treated to be a separate 'person' within the meaning of section 2(31) read with 2(17) of the Incometax Act. In the present case, Company invested its own money and resources in the UAE to earn dividends, interest, gains, which cannot be taxed in the hands of the Appellant in any manner. The taxability thereof in the hands of the Appellant is not in consonance with the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Asset) & Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. More so when, there is no iota of evidence that any funds belonge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not be deemed as belonging to the appellant and the appellant be deemed as beneficial owner thereof. For the aforesaid cumulative reasons, it is the submission of the appellant that the impugned addition made in the assessment order is illegal and, therefore, deserves to be deleted. II. Further without Prejudice, no addition even for one share, as assessee is not beneficial owner of shares, having not made any investment to acquire the same. Without prejudice to the above multiple jurisdictional issues arising in the present matter, it is submitted that, no addition even otherwise of entire credits in bank account of foreign banks could have been made in the hands of assessee herein, since there is contemporaneous evidence brought on record by the assessee as also corroborated with material found even in the course of search conducted under section 132, which is deemed to be true and correct by virtue of the fiction contained in section 132(4A) of the I.T. Act, that the - (i) the assessee was only the shareholder of 1 out of 1000 shares of the foreign companies, which is not even disputed by the AO; (ii) the assessee did not even make any investment of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ever produced Amit Sharma for examination. That Mr. Amit Sharma was a business partner of Mr.Alhammadi. As of today, the appellant is not associated with Mr. Amit Sharma in any capacity and is not aware about the whereabouts of Mr. Amit Sharma. The existence of Mr. Amit Sharma has been confirmed by Mr. Alhammadi in his Affidavit as well as his letter dated 17.05.2016. In any case, the existence of Mr.Amit Sharma is irrelevant for the issue at hand. The entire facts are to be corroborated with existence of Mr. Alhammadi, for which the appellant has produced contemporaneous evidences, including his Affidavit and Passport details. The Ld. Assessing Officer is seeking to draw adverse inference from absence of Mr. Amit Sharma, which is irrelevant and ignoring other evidence supporting stated facts. Sh. Deepak Jain had claimed that he entered an MOU with Alhammadi to enter into lighting business in UAE and Middle east, which was later on terminated. He was categorically asked vide note sheet entry dated 28.02.2018 to produce the MOU and termination document. In spite of ample opportunity, he could not produce the copy of MOU and termination documents. The appellant did not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from any other recognized body, suggesting that the appellant was beneficial owner of funds credited in bank accounts of foreign companies, more so when the nominal shareholding of the appellant, viz., one out of 1000 shares was accepted and not disputed by the Ld. AO. Further, reliance is placed on the order of CIT(A), wherein after considering the assessment order, assessee's submissions and assessee's rebuttal to allegations of the AO at Paras 28 of the CIT(A) order, the CIT(A) duly appreciated the facts, that the appellant could not be considered as owner/beneficial owner of entire credits in the bank accounts of foreign companies and deleted the addition by restricting it to the value of the entire credits in the ratio of 1/1000, being the proportionate shareholding of the assesses, observing as under: "33. It is the contention of the appellant, mainly through 8 sub-grounds of Ground No.6, that he did not make any direct investment in the aforesaid companies including acquiring beneficial shareholdings therein, which according to him was completely made by UAE resident viz. Mr. Ibrahim Abdullah Alhammadi, a citizen and resident of UAE who held Passport No.FY....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which were found from the appellant's premises only during the Search and are listed at Annexure A-1, Pages 17 - 18 of the PB, also reflected the following information: * The appellant only held 1 (one) out of 1000 shares each in both the companies, with remaining 999 shares in each company being held by Mr. Alhammadi; * The assets held by the companies were specifically earmarked as belonging to Mr. ALhammadi; likewise liabilities were also specifically earmarked belonging to Mr. Alhammadi; * There were no assets or liabilities earmarked to the appellant. The appellant only had bank balance by way of his bank accounts in his personal name opened as Imprest Account, which had some opening balances, which also reduced to nil as on the closing date of the balance sheet of aforesaid companies i.e. on 2011 for Meadow Offshore Ltd. and 2010 for Alabama Assets Ltd. 34. The list of various crucial evidences, which were although filed by the appellant but were also found from the appellant premises during the course of search under section 132 of the Act, are as under: Annexure No. Page No. Description A-1 2 to 12 Affidavit of Mr. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., are that two foreign companies viz. M/s. Alabama Assets Ltd and M/s. Meadow Offshore Ltd were incorporated in BVI in collaboration with a foreign/non-resident citizen of UAE i.e. Mr. Ibrahim Abdullah Alhammadi. The majority of shareholding in the said both companies aggregating to 999 out of 1000 shares belong to him and the appellant held 1 out of 1000 shares only in each company. The appellant, being a meagre shareholder, had no control or link with the source of investment in the foreign companies or utilization of fund, to be called beneficiary thereof. 38. The Statute through section 132(4A) of the Act draws presumption regarding truthfulness of the document found in the course of search as also to statements recorded on oath at the time of search under section 132(4) of the Act. Thus, veracity of such documents cannot be ignored unless contrary evidence is available on record. The allegations made by till AO in the impugned order, which were duly rebutted by the appellant were unfounded and without basis dehors any contrary evidences on record. Once the appellant had discharged the burden placed on him for old transaction, through best possible documents available ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of which is addressed primarily to foreign party, the source of deposits in the bank account stands explained which brings them outside the purview of section 2(11) read with section 3 of BMA, which precisely has been accepted by the AO. Furthermore, since the said bank accounts were closed prior to AY 2012-13 (on 13.5.2010 :DBS Singapore) and (on 21.3:21011: Emirates, NBD), there was no obligation on the part of the appellant to disclose the same in his return of income as well, since the requirement of disclosure came for the first time from AY 2012-13. 42. However, the facts remain that the appellant was beneficial owner of 1 out of 1000 shares of the foreign companies and the appellant was not able to conclusively establish the source of investment for acquiring that 1 share. 43. In such circumstances, the addition of foreign undisclosed assets / or income should have been restricted to proportionate amount of beneficial shareholding held by the appellant in both foreign companies, which is 1 by 1000 shares. 44. Accordingly, the addition made by the assessing officer for aggregate amount of Rs. 31,48,55,300/- is restricted to 1 by 1000, which is the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whose sole shareholder and director is the son of the Assessee, Shri Rajneesh Mehra, who has been stated to be a non resident since 1998. The Bank Account Opening Form enclosed at pages 174-191 of the paper book, reveals at page 176 that the account stood in the sole name of the Company "Watergate Advisors Limited." Assessee has submitted a certificate of incumbency dated 12/03/2018 issued by the registered agent of WAL which was also submitted before the A.O., shows that the company WAL was incorporated in BVI on 18/03/2011 and that Shri Rajneesh Mehra was the sole shareholder and director of the said Company. Thus according to this certificate the ownership of the account rests exclusively with Shri Rajneesh Mehra as in case of liquidation or winding up of a company, all its assets and liabilities are distributed amongst its shareholders only However, it is also stated by the assessee that Shri Rajneesh Mehra being the sole owner of the bank account, out of love and respect, mentioned the name of the Assessee, Jatinder Mehra, as the "Beneficial Owner" at column 4.3 of the Form, which is placed at page 183 of the paper book. ..... 24...The third condition that n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provided by such person other than the person holding/owning the property and such other person also hold the property. (c) Property of any kind ..... 39. Testing the transactions before us it is apparent that assessee does not own any share capital in case of Watergate advisors Limited as well as it also does not controls the above company as he does not have any shareholding or management rights in that company. 40. With respect to the mention of the name of the assessee in the account opening form as beneficial owner, assessee has relied upon the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Kamal Galani case (supra) wherein in para number 13 onwards the coordinate bench has held that merely mentioning the name of the assessee in the account opening form which is rebutted by the assessee by filing an affidavit and complete details of the ownership of the bank account, the assessee cannot be held the beneficial owner of such sum. Therefore, such solitary fact cannot lead to addition in the hence of the assessee where there is no other evidence available with respect to the ownership or beneficial ownership over such bank account. In view of this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n other trustee are managing the affairs of the trust and also beneficial owners of trust properties. ...... 15. Coming back to the investment in Dalham Trust under account no. GG004793_ADR06332. There is no dispute with regard to the aggregate account balance to the extent of Rs. 2,00,23,778/-. Shri.Balaji Ramamoorthy, son of the appellant has owned up and explained source for investment in the trust. Further, the Assessing Officer on the basis of CRS information in Insight portal came to the conclusion that the assessee is a beneficial owner of the trust and value of investment in the trust is undisclosed foreign income/asset u/s. 10(3) of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Asset) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer is completely erred in arriving at a conclusion that the assessee is a beneficial owner only on the basis of recitals of trust deed, even though he does not have any other corroborative evidence to prove his allegation that the assessee is a beneficial owner and value of investment in the trust is undisclosed income of the assessee. We further noted that, Shri. Balaji Ramamoorthy has filed a confirm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... debit note is concerned, it is also a matter of fact that this debit note pertains to transaction entered into between two corporate entities and even after search, nothing has been found from the premises of the assessee which would show that in fact the assessee has received this amount in cash or kind. Therefore, there is no error in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. We affirm the same. ...." d. Sri Srinjoy Bose v. A.D.I.T. (Inv.)., /[2023] 200 taxmann.com 200 (Kolkata - Trib.) "... 13. Now, in light of the provisions of section 2(11) & 2(12) of the Black Money Act, 2015 first we notice that in the instant case the issue is only with regard to the alleged undisclosed foreign asset i.e. the investment in the insurance policy and there is no issue of undisclosed foreign income because the assessee only received the reduced amount of investment. So, we will just focus on the issue that as to whether the alleged foreign asset is an undisclosed asset located outside India. Provision of Section 2(11) of the Black Money Act, 2015 provides for the definition of undisclosed asset located outside India as stated above, and in our hu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the parents of the assessee had resided in Sudan is proved by the passport of the mother and also by the fact that his brother has born in Sudan. The entries in the passport of the mother also show that she was managing her affairs independently including the bank accounts. Hence, in our view, these facts and the surrounding circumstances would show that the impugned deposits have been made by the parents of the assessee out of their income earned abroad. Accordingly, we are of the view that the AO was not right in assessing the impugned deposits in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the additions made by him. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed..." f. Krishna Das Agarwal v. DDIT/ADIT(Inv.), [2023] 150 taxmann.com 290 (Jaipur - Trib.), Final Prayer In view of the above, insofar as the merits of the addition is concerned, it is respectfully submitted that the order of CIT(A) may kindly be affirmed, subject to deletion of the nominal addition of Rs. 3,14,855/- made by the CIT(A), for reasons stated above. Consequently, the penalty imposed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Mr. Alahammadi in the year 2005 and the same getting terminated on 31.3.2010. Hence the grievance of the revenue that MOU and its termination not furnished by the assessee thereby drawing adverse inference on the assessee, stands duly addressed. It could also be seen that the affidavit duly confirms the fact vide Clause 38 thereon that after termination of the MOU, all the assets and liabilities including bank balances remained with Mr. Alahammadi or his nominees and not the assessee. Further as per Clause 18 of the affidavit, the funds infused in M/s Alabama Assets Limited were entirely arranged by Mr. Alahammadi from his sources and assessee did not make any contribution thereon, whether by way of share capital, share application money, or loans / advances or on any other account. Similarly the share capital in M/s Meadow Offshore Limited was infused by M/s Alabama Assets Limited, which fact is confirmed in Clause 19 of the affidavit. The affidavit also confirms that shareholding of the assessee is only to the extent of 1 out of 1000 equity shares in M/s Alabama Assets Limited in the capacity of nominee shareholder vide Clause 16 of the affidavit. As per Clause 21 of the affida....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cally go to prove that assessee cannot be in any manner whatsoever connected to the investments made in the aforesaid two foreign entities and the credits which were lying thereon. Further, it is also pertinent to note that in the balance sheet of M/s Alabama Assets Limited and M/s Meadow Offshore Limited, it has been categorically reflected that the entire shareholding in the said companies were held by Mr. Alahammadi and name of the assessee is reflected there on only as a Nominee Shareholder holding one share. 19. In view of the aforesaid detailed reasoning supported by contemporaneous documents found during the course of search, the stand taken by the assessee right from 29.07.2013 i.e. from investigation wing proceedings onwards, gets established beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, there is absolutely no case for implicating or impleading the assessee to the investments made in the foreign entities and the proceeds of the bank account closure of the foreign entities. It is absolutely not in dispute that the total proceeds of the bank accounts of the foreign entities were withdrawn by Mr Alahammadi only and not by the assessee herein. Further the letter dated 17.5.2016 addressed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....study for market could not materialise and the companies were disbanded. Please state the utilization of funds after disbandment ? Ans: After disbandment I am not aware of the company's activities. However, I have furnished the statement of accounts to the authorities. 21. This statement of the assessee under section 132(4) of the Act on 22.12.2017 gets further strengthened with the corroborative evidences found during the course of search which have already been dealt hereinabove and thereby carrying evidentiary value. It is pertinent to note that this statement was never retracted by the assessee at any point of time. 22. It would not be out of place to mention here that the affidavit of Mr. Alahammadi, the Balance Sheets of two foreign entities and the letter addressed by Mr. Alahammadi to the assessee dated 17.5.2016, having been found during the course of search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act on assessee on 22.12.2017, need to be presumed to be true and correct in consonance with the provisions of section 132(4A) read with section 292C of the Income Tax Act. This presumption had not been rebutted by both assessee as well as by the revenue by bringing an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¥Ø³ØªØ´Ø§Ø±Ø§Øª القانونية Shaikha Ahmed Advocates & Legal Consultants ----- 87 March, 2016 ٢٠١٦/Ù£/Ù¨ TO WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERN شهادة لمن يهمه الأمر This letter confirms that Mr. Ibrahim Ahmad Abdulla Alhammadi, citizen of United Arab تؤكد هذه الرسالة على أن السيد / إبراهيم Ø£Øمد عبد الله الØمادى ØŒ مواطن من الإمارات العربية المتØدة ويØمل جواز سÙر رقم FY8447511 ومقيم ÙÙŠ دبي، الإمارات العربية المتØدة هو عميلنا ومعرو٠لدينا منذ الخمس سنوات الماضية وقام بتوقيع الإÙ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....§Ø±Ø§Øª Sectors in Middle East and Europe. والقطاعات الأخرى ÙÙŠ الشرق الأوسطوأروبا Ù¢ - ،قدتعرÙت على السيد/ ديناك جين. مواطن That I was introduced to Mr. DEEPAK JAIN. citizen of .2 منتدى ويØمل ÙÙŠ الوقت الØالي جواز سÙر India and currently holding Passport noZ3491102 رقم Z3491102 صادر عن Øكومة الهند بتاريخ issued by the Government of India on 10/2/2016 by ٢٠١٦/Ù¦/١٨ عن طريق صديقي وشريكى التجاري my friend end business Pertner Mr. Amit Sharma in 2004-05 السيد/ اميت شارماً ÙÙŠ عام Ù¢Ù Ù Ù¥Ù Ù¢Ù Ù Ù¤ Ù£- وعليه Ùإنى والسيد/ ديباك جون كاÙ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....تقديم أي family members or Group concerns were not 1 Document 3 regjuired ra bring in any inveswrantinto the Projects. That Mr. DEEPAX JAIN was required in render his . gesSessioral services sa contained Ly Para S.1[1) of the MOU. As per the MOU, his shzre in the business of provid ing Lighting Cabaiens fer Awervobilvo id United Arab Emirates and South Fast Asi ans agrerc :s be 25% of not profis 'suss aaid brusicwsa/jaujss* only as Sweat Equity. The sa'd Swear Equiry was to Le viated in the Deujah jain upon the autoessful implementation of the projects. Ù¦- أنه تعين على السيد/ ديباك جين تقديم خدماته المهنية ونكا لما مر سكين ÙÙŠ النشرة رقم ٥٫١ استثمارات للمشاريع. (ب) من مذكرة التÙاهم ÙˆÙقًا لمذكرة التÙاهم، ثم الاتÙاق ع....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... بيانا ÙÙŠ الÙقرة Ù¥.Ù¦ من مذكرة خلا٠أعمال الإضاءة أيضًا ÙÙŠ الشركة والقي يثم بعيدا عن أعمال الإضاءة، لا ÙŠØÙ‚ للسيد/ ديباك للقاهم بأنه يجوز لي تنÙيذ الأعمال التجارية تنÙيذها بموجب مذكرة التÙاهم إضاÙØ© لذلك. Ùيما يتعلق Ø¨Ø§Ù„ØªØ±Ø¨Ø§Ø ÙˆØ§Ù„Ø®Ø³Ø§Ø¦Ø± للأعمال التجارية بين الØصول على مساممة بالجيد والعمل إذا لم يشارك ÙÙ‰ هذه الأنشطة الأخرى. . That pursuan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....هم، ثم الاتÙاق على أن تكون Øصته ÙÙŠ الأعمال التجارية العربية المتØدة ودول جنوب شرق أسيا يسية لتوÙير Øلول الإضاءة للسيارات ÙÙŠ الإمارات شريك أو أكثر أو مشاريع مشتركة، إضاÙØ© لذلك، ÙÙ‰ مثل هذه الاØتمالات، ستخال المساهمة بالجهد والعمل للسيد/ ديباك جين Ù…Øمية Ù¨- تم الاتÙاق كذلك، بيانا ÙÙŠ الÙقرة Ù¥.Ù¦ من مذكرة خلا٠أعمال الإضاءة أيØ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... تعين Actitorp Ltd were appointed by us as our nomines السادة شركة / اكتيكورب ليمتد من جابياً first Direcic.Alr. DEEPAK JAlNwas nominally كمرشØنا ليكون المدير الأول وتم تسجيل السيد/ recorded as beneficial owner of the one Equity share ديباك جبن كمالك مستÙيد من Øصة مساهمة held by M/S Sharecorp Ltd. at the time of واØدة التي تمتلكها شركة / شوركورب ليسعد ÙÙŠ incorporation. وقت التأسيس. كان ذلك بهد٠الدخول ÙÙŠ مشروع Tha: with a view to venture into Lighting Solutiors .12 Øاول الإضاءة لمشاريع البنية التØتية ÙÙŠ الإمارات ا....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ته Ù…Ø±Ø´Ø Ø¹Ù† البأما اميتس Offshore Lod. on behalf of and as a Nominee of أنعند وعليه من أجل البدء تم تسجيل السيد/ ALABAMA ASSETS LTD.Therefore, to begin with ديباك جبن اسميًا كمالك مستليت بØصة DEEPAK JAIN was nominallyrecorded as beneficial مساهمة واØدة باسمه. تكون منكية الÙائده owner of the one Equity share held in his name. The البائية لمسة المساهمة الواØدة منه ÙÙŠ شركة ultinissa beneficial ownership of this " Equity Share resed in ALABAMA ASSETSLTD. at all times. الباما اسمتس Ù„ÙŠÙ…ØªØ Ùاجونهوبالأوقات 5104A2/5 Document 5 تم تأسيس كلا الشركتيÙ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....لس ليمتد ÙˆÙقًا لما هو منصوص عليه مذكرة التÙاهم. ÙŠØتÙظ السيد/ ديباك جين سواء That Mr. DEEPAK JAIN, either directly or through .15 ١٦ - norrine:, held the following position in any of the بطرقة مباشرة أو عن طريق مرشØ. بالمنصب companies mentioned above .- التالي ÙÙ‰ أى من الشركات المذكورة سالقد ALABAMA ASSETS LTD. Ù¡) الباما اسيتس ليمتد، مسجل كمالك Recorded as initial beneficial owner in a.s. a. 3la lead qui xt . واØدة بقيمة Ù¡ دولار أمريكي بصÙته Ù…Ø±Ø´Ø Ù‚Ø¯ 5 105 respect of 1 Equity share of nominee of and on behalf of both of us in نهاية عن عدا ÙÙ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... تم Ø·Ø±Ø Ø§Ù„Ù…Ø¨Ø§Ù„Øº المخصصة لـ الباما .That the funds infused in ALABAMA ASSETS LTD .18 ١٨ - اسيتس ليمتد بالكامل / وإدارتها من جانبى / were entirely raised/ arranged by me/ under my بموجب تعليماتي وبناء على مصادري، لم يقدم Inscructions and from my sourees. Mr. DEEPAK JAIN السيد/ ديباك جون أي مساهمة ÙÙŠ الباما اسبلس did not make any contribution in ALAIMAMA ASSETS ليمتد سواء عن طريق رأس المال المساهم أو مبلغ LTD. whether by way of Share Capital. Share طلب الØصة أو القروض/ السلÙيات أو أي Application Money or Loans/ Advances or on any other account. ØساØ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ˆÙ…Ùˆ ايهاب سلـ personal name in DBS Bank, SingaporeA/c No. 074- 0-01753G and Emirates Bank inernational PJSC now renamed as Emirates NBD in A/cNe. 0073-051288- 100 tili April 2009 later A/c No. 02113579C4101 from June' 2009as imprest accounts. ـان الØسن ابن الغائرة 5 Document 7 ٢٢۔ عقب ذلك ثم تمويل المبالغ التالية من جانب الباما اسيتس ليمتد من الØساب البنكي 22 That following sumswere transferred by ALABAMA ASSETS LTD. from the bank account no. 153284 held رقم :١٦٣٢٨ لدى يوبي إس به جي - ستÙاÙورة with UBS A.C.Singapore and MEADOW OFFSHORE وميدو اوقشور ليمتد من الØساب البنكي رقم LID. from bank account nc. 155185held with UB5 ١٥٥٢٨٥ لدÙ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ند وميدو اوقشور ليمتد ÙƒØساب سلÙØ© ASSITS LTD. andMEADOW OFFSHORE LTD.es Im west Account مستديمة بعد تأسيس ÙˆÙØªØ Ø§Ù„Øسابات البنكية تم That after incorperation andl opznint up bank .24 تغيير أساس رأس المال للشركات رأمبيØت أنا . accounts the capita structu'e of the corrpanies was changed and myself and my nominees horams win & ogling atalanta only shareholders and Directors of these com pasics. الشركات. 25. That the Books of Accounts and Statutory records of will be والمجلات القانونية ÙÙŠ بيكيبي على العنوان مكتب bath the companias were ma ntained in my office at 6 Document 8 رقم ٠٤١٣ بناية Ù¤. أعمار بيزنس بارك. 15 Office 413. building 4 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....†Ø§ ÙÙŠ جميع الأوقات. handis. كان دور السيد/ دبباك جون مساعدة That the ro e of Mr. DEEPAK IAIN was to assist my .30 Ù£Ù - teamin execuntion of the Projects. Ùريقي ÙÙŠ تنÙيذ المشاريع. ٣١- لم نقم السند/ دينك جبن بطريقة That Vir. DEEPAKJAIN, directly or irdirectly. did nut .31 مباشرة أو غير مباشرة بعمل أي استثمارات نقت make any investrent, in cash or in kind, whether by أو مينا سبراء من باريق الأنوم أو التروضى ÙÙŠ الكيانات مالية الذكر وكامل الاستثمارات، عن entities and the entire investment, by way of equity and lsany was made by no, lisaidly and ilrough my w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....har despite of our best intention and sincere efloits 33 ٣٣- المخلصة لم يتم الانتهاء من المشروع Øتى عام .the project could not take cff til 2010.Therefore Ù¢Ù Ù¡Ù . لذلك تم غلق الØساب البنكي لـ الباما Bank Account of ALABAMA ASSETS LTC. wes clasrd اسيلس ليمتـ ÙÙ‰ Ù¢Ù Ù Ù© وغلق Øساب سدو and of MEADOW OFFSHORE LTD. was 2009 1 dosed in 2010. أوÙشور ليمتد ÙÙŠ Ù¢Ù Ù¡Ù 3/4 No Interest, dividend or remuneration was paid to 3 cl | su i - 4 J .f مكاÙآت لي أو إلى السيد ديباك جين من جانب أي me or Mr. DEEPAC JAIN from any of these two companies من هاتين الشركتين تم شطب اسم الباما اسميتس ليمتد ....