'Anil Ambani firm got 143.7 mn euro tax waiver after Rafale deal'

Agencies
April 13, 2019

New Delhi, Apr 13: New Delhi: France waived taxes worth 143.7 million euros to a French-registered telecom subsidiary of Anil Ambani's Reliance Communications in 2015, months after India's announcement of buying 36 Rafale jets, a leading French newspaper Le Monde reported on Saturday.

In its reaction, Reliance Communications rejected any wrongdoing and said the tax dispute was settled under a legal framework which is available for all companies operating in France. The French newspaper said the French tax authorities accepted 7.3 million euros from Reliance Flag Atlantic France as a settlement as against original demand of 151 million euros. Reliance Flag owns a terrestrial cable network and other telecom infrastructure in France.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi had announced the procurement of a batch of 36 Rafale jets after talks with the then French President Francois Hollande on April 10, 2015, in Paris. The final deal was sealed on September 23, 2016. The Congress has been alleging massive irregularities in the deal, saying the government was procuring each aircraft at a cost of over Rs 1,670 crore as against Rs 526 crore finalised by the UPA government when it was negotiating the deal.

The Congress has also been targeting the government over the selection of Anil Ambani-owned Reliance Defence as an offset partner for Dassault Aviation, the manufacturer of Rafale. The government has rejected the allegations.

The French newspaper said the company was investigated by French tax authorities and found liable to pay 60 million euros in taxes for the period 2007 to 2010. However, Reliance offered to pay 7.6 million euros only as a settlement but it was French tax authorities refused to accept the amount.

The authorities conducted another probe for the period 2010 to 2012 and asked the company to pay an additional 91 million euros in taxes, the report said. It said by April 2015, the total amount owed by Reliance to the French authorities in taxes was at least 151 million euros. In October, six months after Modi announced in Paris about the Rafale deal, the French authorities accepted 7.3 million euros from Reliance as a settlement as against the original demand of 151 million euros.

A spokesperson of Reliance Communications said the tax demands were "completely unsustainable and illegal" and that the company denied any favouritism or gain from the settlement.

"During the period under consideration by the French Tax Authorities - 2008-2012 i.e. nearly 10 years ago, Flag France had an operating loss of Rs 20 crore (Euro 2.7 million). French tax authorities had raised a tax demand of over Rs 1100 crore for the same period," the official said. "As per the French tax settlement process as per law, a mutual settlement agreement was signed to pay Rs 56 crore as a final settlement," he said.

Comments

Dodanna
 - 
Saturday, 13 Apr 2019

Just wait and see. All chores acounts will be seized and published all over India. Indian Telecom;privatized airports and seaport and Vijaya Bank all will be pulled back to its original track.

 

All chaddi back industrialit's and rIchest businessman hidden agenda will be disclosed.

 

Let the innocent Indians understood how chowkidaar and groups playing with our nations wealth.

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
August 3,2020

New Delhi, Aug 3: Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Digvijaya Singh on Monday said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi should defer the foundation stone laying ceremony for Ram temple from August 5 as it will be an "inauspicious hour" for the event.

"I request Modi Ji again that the inauspicious occasion of August 5 (for foundation stone laying ceremony for Ram temple) should be deferred. The construction of Ram temple is to begin after hundreds of years of struggle and PM Modi should leave his stubbornness that may cause an obstruction in the process," Digvijaya tweeted (translated from Hindi).

The Congress leader went on to claim that several BJP leaders were falling sick due to COVID-19 as the result of ignoring the norms of Sanatan Dharma. "The results of ignoring the norms of Sanatan Dharma are - all priests of Ram temple tested positive for COVID-19, death of UP Minister Kamal Rani Varun due to corona, UP BJP chief tested COVID-19 positive, Home Minister Amit Shah tested positive for COVID-19, Madhya Pradesh CM Shivraj Singh Chouhan tested positive for COVID-19, Karnataka CM Yediyurappa tested positive for COVID-19," he added.

"Lord Ram is the epicentre of faith for crores of Hindus and the PM should not play with norms and traditions of Sanatan Dharma established across thousands of years," he added.

The Congress leader further questioned the urgency of holding the foundation stone laying event in times when COVID-19 spread is prevalent across the country.

"By laying the foundation stone for Ram temple at an inauspicious hour, how many people do you want to send to the hospital Modi Ji? Yogi Ji, please explain to Modi Ji. In your presence, why are the norms and traditions of Sanatan Dharma being broken? What is your compulsion that you are allowing this to happen?" he contended.

"One more question arises. A minister of the Uttar Pradesh government died due to coronavirus. Union Home Minister tested positive for COVID-19 and Uttar Pradesh BJP chief also tested positive. In these circumstances, whether Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister and India's Prime Minister should not be quarantined? Is being quarantined only mandated for common people? Not for Prime Minister and Chief Ministers? The time limit for quarantine is 14 days," he added.

He further said that the entire cabinet should go into quarantine otherwise they will infect the residents of Ayodhya.

"These people's religion is 'Hindutva' and not 'Sanatan Dharma'. hence they have nothing to do with Sanatan Dharma's traditions. They have broken all the norms. Now, Modi Ji will issue the muhurta and he will only lay the foundation stone," he tweeted.

The Prime Minister is scheduled to lay the foundation stone of the Ram temple in Ayodhya on August 5.

The construction of Ram temple will begin after the ceremony to lay the foundation stone in which Chief Ministers of several states, Ministers from the Union Cabinet and RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat are also likely to participate.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 3,2020

Daman, Mar 3: A BJP councillor was shot dead on Monday in the Union Territory of Daman, police said.

Salim Memon was sitting in his motorcycle showroom when three to four unidentified persons shot four to five bullets after asking a visitor there to move out, an official said quoting eye-witnesses.

While fleeing, they also shot two rounds close to this visitor who was standing outside, he said.

"Memon was rushed to a hospital in Marwad area but was declared dead on arrival. CCTV footage is being scanned to nab the culprits," said Daman Superintendent of Police Vikramjit Singh.

Memon was elected to Daman municipality as a Congress candidate but then switched over to the BJP.

Sources said Memon, who also has a land brokerage business, had come out of jail a few months back in connection with a case of rivalry.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.