BrahMos WORLD INDIA MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL WTN SPECIAL Astrology GOSSIP CORNER RELIGION SPORTS BUSINESS FUN FACTS ENTERTAINMENT LIFESTYLE TRAVEL ART & LITERATURE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY HEALTH EDUCATION DIASPORA OPINION & INTERVIEW RECIPES DRINKS BIG MEMSAAB 2017 BUDGET 2017 FUNNY VIDEOS VIRAL ON WEB PICTURE STORIES Mahakal Ke Darshan
WTN HINDI ABOUT US PRIVACY POLICY SITEMAP CONTACT US
N
W
T
logo
Breaking News

Bengaluru tax defaulter held in Mumbai, jailed for 6 months

Tuesday - February 12, 2019 11:26 pm , Category : BUSINESS
Bengaluru, Feb 12 (IANS) A Bengaluru businessman was arrested in Mumbai and jailed for six months here for allegedly defaulting on payment of Rs 11.94 crore as income tax and penalty arrears, said a top official on Tuesday.
 
"For the first time for Karnataka, a Bengaluru businessman was stopped on Monday at the Mumbai airport from leaving the country and arrested for allegedly not paying Rs 11.94 crore income tax and penalty arrears," said the Income Tax official in a statement here without naming the defaulter.
 
A tax recovery officer sent the defaulter to the city central jail for six months after he failed to arrange for paying the tax arrears, including penalty and interest, after he was brought from Mumbai under police custody.
 
"The defaulter was also found to have illegally transferred property at Yeshwanthpur on Bengaluru's northwest suburb," said the statement.
 
As per Rule 73 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1962, if a defaulter transfers his property after the service of ITCP-1 (Income Tax Certificate Proceedings), the certificate may be executed by his arrest and detention.
 
The provision in Rule 16 prohibiting transfer of property by the defaulter without the permission of the TRO (Tax Recovery Officer) is stringent and the defaulter must face the consequences of his wilful violation.
 
The TRO under the Income Tax Act can take recourse to one or more of the modes of recovery specified under Section 222 of the Act read with the rules laid down in the second schedule.
 
"The defaulter had violated the provisions of Section 222 of the Act and Rule 16 of the schedule by transferring immovable properties after the date of service of notice of demand," said the statement.
 

RELATED NEWS