|
|
|
| « From the Courts » |
|---|
 Delhi HC dismisses RSSB chief Gurinder Singh Dhillon's application seeking not to put ITR on record | | The Dy. CIT, Circle 11(1), Room No.405, C.R. Building, New Delhi. Vs. M/s. Ebony Retail Holdings Ltd., F-2/1, Khanpur Extension, New Delhi | | M/s PAD COM LLP C/o. R.B.Arora & Co., DSM- 127, DLF Towers, ShivajiMarg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi Vs. ACIT Circle-36(1) New Delhi | | M/s. Jupiter Healthcare Co. F-11, Naveen Shahadra, New Delhi Vs. The ACIT, Circle 56(1), New Delhi. | | Gayatri Seva Sansthan, 155, G.T. Road, Panchwati, Ghaziabad. Vs. Addl. CIT, Range 1, Ghaziabad. | | The ITO, Ward-4(1), New Delhi vs. Jindal Reality Pvt.Ltd. Flat No.1104, 11th Floor, Hemkunt Chamber, 89th Nehru Place, New Delhi | | SUN SOFTLINK PVT. LTD., C/O S.K. BANSAL, CA 101, KOCHAR MARKET, FIRST FLOOR, JHAJJAR ROAD, ROHTAK (HARYANA) Vs. ITO, WARD 24(3), NEW DELHI | | PANKAJ NAGALIA, 13-B, NEW SURVEY ROAD, DEHRADUN UTTARAKHAND Vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2, DEHRADUN | | Ms. Priti Aggarwal, 17, Shankar Nagar, Krishna Nagar, Delhi Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 55 (3), New Delhi. | | Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) | | Shri Rameshwar Dayal Sharma, C/o Kapil Goel, Adv. F-26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Faridabad. |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Dy. CIT, Circle 11(1), Room No.405, C.R. Building, New... » |
Delhi HC dismisses RSSB chief Gurinder Singh Dhillon's application seeking not to put ITR on record |
|
|
| September, 14th 2020 |
The Delhi High court has dismissed an application filed by the head of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) Gurinder Singh Dhillon seeking exemption on filing income tax returns and other financial documents.
“In my view, these documents are essential to enable the learned Joint Registrar/Court to determine the merit in the stand of the garnishees who are disputing their liability qua the JDs,” said the court in its order dated September 11. ET has seen a copy of the order.
The court said that it sees no reason to exempt the applicants from filing copies of their income tax returns, bank statements and the balance-sheets.
Dhillon had sought exemption from filing Income Tax returns (ITR) in the Delhi High Court, citing that it contains “personal information” and it was not an “appropriate stage” to produce such documents.
The court had earlier asked Dhillon along with his family members to file ITRs after he denied of any liability towards RHC holdings Ltd, promoted by Malvinder and Shivinder Singh.In an affidavit filed before the court, Dhillon has said that being individuals, the Dhillons do not “maintain balance sheet” and filing ITR would cause “severe prejudice” to them.
Dhillon had earlier admitted of his financial dealings with the Singh brothers by annexing copies of bank statements. However, he had denied of any liability to RHC holding, to which the court had asked those of who were disputing their liability to file their ITR, bank statements and balance sheets.In an affidavit filed on January 30, Dhillon had sought an exemption from filing ITRs for himself, his wife, Shabnam Dhillon, his sons-Gupreet and Gurkirat and his daughter-in-law Nayantara Dhillon.“In this regard it is submitted that the applicants have already placed on record in this court their relevant bank statements. Further, the applicants being individuals do not maintain balance sheets and hence the direction to that extent is not application to them,” read the 14-page 14-page affidavit.
In an affidavit filed before the Delhi High court on November 12 last year, Dhillon had disclosed about the financial transactions between RHC holdings Ltd and his family members dating back to 2006. In fact he has also tried to establish that his sons Gurpreet and Gurkirat Singh Dhillon were young at that time, Gurkirat being minor and both his sons did not manage their financial affairs personally.
He had also revealed that RHC devised such a mechanism that transactions essentially involved transferring money from one subsidiary to a bank account of Dhillons and then transferring the same money either on the same day or shortly thereafter to another subsidiary of the group or usually to RHC holdings Ltd.
He had also claimed that over the course of 2011-2015, out of the surplus of Rs 103.5 crores with RHC he and his family drew only Rs29.38 crores, leaving the balance surplus of Rs 74.12 crores. “Thus an amount of Rs 74.12 crores continued to be due from RHC holdings Ltd”.
|
|
|
