Latest news with #Section
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Madras HC stays ED proceedings against film producer, bizman
Chennai, The Madras High Court on Friday stayed all further proceedings, pursuant to the Enforcement Directorate's authorisation to conduct search and seizure, against film producer Akash Baskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran in the alleged ₹1,000 crore TASMAC money laundering case. A division bench comprising Justices M S Ramesh and V Lakshminarayanan granted the interim stay on the petitions filed by Baskaran and Vikram, challenging the action of the ED. Senior counsels Vijay Narayanan and Abudukumar submitted that the petitioners have no involvement with the TASMAC operations at all and in the alleged 41 FIRs lodged by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for the scheduled offences, no independent allegation or predicate offence has been registered against the petitioners and therefore questioned the validity of the invocation of Section 17 of the PMLA. In its order, the bench said since the petitioners had totally denied any involvement relating to the scheduled offences, it had called upon the Special Public Prosecutor to produce before it the materials forming the basis of information in their possession, which has led them to believe that the petitioners had committed an act, which constitutes money laundering or is in possession of any proceeds of crime, records or property, in a sealed cover, through an interim order dated June 13, 2025. On June 17, the SPP produced a sealed cover along with an undated and unsigned brief explanation note along with supporting materials, claiming it to be the information they possess about the petitioners, which led them to initiate the search operations, the bench added. The bench said the brief explanation note, however, also does not relate to the information or materials which the Directorate claims to have in possession in their earlier notes on "reason to believe" produced on June 17. Neither does this brief explanation note disclose any information in the possession of the Directorate, which authorises them to conduct the search and seizure operations in the petitioners premises, the bench added. The bench said when it indicated to Additional Solicitor General S V Raju that whatever the information/materials they had produced before it in the sealed cover had no nexus to their original claims of being in possession of incriminating information, he submitted that the 41 FIRs, relating to the scheduled offences registered against the TASMAC officials, were the information in their possession, which authorises them to conduct the search and seizure operation. "When we expressed to the Additional Solicitor General that we do not approve his claim in this regard, the Additional Solicitor General submitted that they had already directed the respondent to de-seal the petitioner's premises . His statement is hereby recorded. The Additional Solicitor General sought four weeks time to file a counter affidavit before us," the bench added. The bench said, "On a prima facie view, we find that the Authorisation No.96/2025, dated May 15,2025 and the consequential sealing of the petitioner's premises by the respondent, is wholly without authority or jurisdiction, since no incriminating information or material was in their possession on May 15, 2025 when the respondent had authorised for search and seizure operations and on May 16, 2025 when the respondent had sealed the petitioner's premises". The bench said it consciously refrained from describing the alleged material or information claimed to be in the possession of the ED for obvious reasons. However, it would suffice to state that the so-called information produced by the Directorate before it has absolutely no semblance of an information, which may have led them to believe that the petitioner may be involved in the offence of money laundering. "In the light of the above observations, there shall be an order of interim stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the respondent's Authorization No.96/2025 dated May, 15,.2025, pending disposal of this Writ Petition", the bench added. The bench said there shall be a further interim order to the ED to return all the seized properties of the petitioners, pursuant to the search and seizure operations conducted on May 16, pending final disposal of this Writ Petition. The petitioners shall not tamper or alienate the digital devices that has been returned to him/to be returned to him, pending final disposal of this writ petition. The bench posted to July 16, for further hearing of the case.
Axios
6 hours ago
- Business
- Axios
Silicon Valley is pushing revival of game-changing tax benefit for startups
Silicon Valley is pushing senators to follow the House's lead in reviving a favorable tax benefit that disappeared several years ago. Why it matters: This could change the math for a slew of startups, and even Big Tech companies. The big picture: U.S. companies currently are unable to fully deduct many software development and other R&D costs, including certain employee salaries, from their taxable income. That's because of a change made to Section 174 of the tax code during the 2017 tax bill negotiations, in order to make the budgetary impact of tax cuts more politically palatable. It became effective in 2022. It requires that such costs be amortized over five years, rather than taken in the year the costs are incurred — much like a one-time capital outlay that depreciates, even though compensation expenses tend to be repeated annually. Zoom in: Startups tend to be unprofitable, which should mean that they don't pay federal tax. But that got flipped on its head with the Section 174 change, since many of a startup's costs now get applied to future taxes. In short, it can make unprofitable companies look profitable for tax purposes. According to a recent survey by fintech upstart Mercury, which was shared exclusively with Axios, 73% of respondents say that their companies have had a negative financial impact from the 2022 change. Some 44% of respondents said it forced operational changes, including canceled projects and layoffs. How it works: The House bill would allow for full expensing in the same year that the costs were incurred, but would not apply that change retroactively to 2022. A proposal from the Senate Finance Committee would make the change to Section 174 retroactive to 2022 for small companies and allow acceleration of remaining deductions for larger companies. Driving the news: More than 2,300 individuals recently signed a letter that was circulated on the Hacker News site run by startup incubator Y Combinator, asking the Senate to prioritize the retroactivity carveout. They included employees of OpenAI, Airbnb, Spotify, and Redfin. By the numbers: According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House provision — without retroactivity — would add $118 billion to the deficit over the next decade.
New Indian Express
13 hours ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Telangana HC notice to Naveen Mittal in evacuee property NOC case
In the second petition, Agarwal contested a decision of the trial court which had kept in abeyance the cognisance proceedings against Mittal and other public servants due to the pending sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The petitioner alleged that the NOCs were issued illegally to third parties in criminal collusion with other accused persons. She claimed that forged and fabricated documents were used and that the NOCs were issued with false recitals. She also alleged that objections raised by her were recorded without her being served any notice or given an opportunity to be heard. The NOC proceedings allegedly went so far as to declare the title and possession in favour of the applicants, effectively undermining her own claim to the property. Agarwal asserted that the entire process was aimed at misclassifying the disputed land as 'non-evacuee' property, thereby nullifying her title which is based on GO No 388 dated December 20, 1954. This government order had declared the subject land as evacuee property, forming the basis of her claim. The two writ petitions came up for hearing before separate Single Judge Benches — one headed by Justice K Lakshman and the other by Justice N Tukaramji. After hearing the submissions, both benches issued notices to Mittal.
Time of India
16 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
F‑1 Visa Interview 2025: Student denied after technical questions surprise applicant
On May 30, 2025, an act of kindness by a young student took an unexpected turn. During a routine U.S. F‑1 visa interview at the Hyderabad Consulate, a student who was waiting for his own appointment, saw an elderly struggling with the visa process. The boy, understanding their issue, stepped in to help the woman with understanding the B‑2 (tourist) visa. But the dynamics shifted, with the subsequent interview taking an unexpectedly technical turn and ultimately resulting in visa denial. The incident The student, pursuing a Master's in Data Science at Indiana University Bloomington, was there for his F‑1 interview. He then saw an older woman next to him struggling to understand the tourist visa process. As per reports, the boy helped her by explaining her travel intent and making her understand the supporting documents. Not only that, he also accompanied her during the short queue. Though he did not speak for her during questioning, his support reportedly relaxed her. The visa officer then started the F‑1 interview with the student but the dynamic shifted quickly. What began as standard procedural questions about university choices and study plans, the officer started asking him about why he chose Data Science. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like เทรดทองCFDs ด้วยค่าสเปรดที่ต่ำที่สุด IC Markets สมัคร Undo He also asked him how he intends to fund his education. He also started asking him some technical questions as well. Such is a rare concept during visa interviews focused on intent. The student was left shocked but answered the questions competently. But his visa was denied under Section 214(b) — a common statute used when consular officers deem applicants insufficiently tied to their home country or suspect intent to immigrate. The student later took to Reddit and shared his ordeal: 'I was surprised by the level of technical questions asked… I tried to stay calm and answer everything honestly' Several Reddit users started sharing their experiences. One user remarked, 'Wait whattt… why would he ask such questions.' Another told him to emphasise how his technical skills would benefit India after his studies. Well this is not the first time that such an incident is being reported. Several visa applicants across India have reported unexpected technical queries during their F‑1 interviews. The U.S. recently reinstated student visa interviews with added scrutiny—most notably requiring applicants to publicly open their social media accounts for review. One step to a healthier you—join Times Health+ Yoga and feel the change
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Consensual ties turning bitter can't warrant rape charges, rules Chhattisgarh HC
The Chhattisgarh High Court nullified a rape charge against a man. The court observed the relationship was consensual. It stated a souring consensual relationship isn't grounds for criminal proceedings. RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside a charge framed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man, observing that the relationship between the complainant and the applicant was consensual. The court emphasized that a consensual relationship turning sour cannot be a ground for invoking criminal proceedings. Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha noted that a consensual relationship going bad or partners growing distant does not justify invoking the criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct, he observed, not only burdens the courts but also tarnishes the reputation of an individual with the stigma of a heinous offence. The court allowed the criminal revision petition filed by the man, thereby setting aside the order dated July 3, 2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh, which had framed rape charges against him in the sessions trial. The applicant, a resident of Tikrapara, Raipur, had challenged the framing of the charge. His counsel argued that the trial court had erred in framing the charge without considering the details of the investigation. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Memperdagangkan CFD Emas dengan salah satu spread terendah? IC Markets Mendaftar Undo It was submitted that statements of neighbours recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which were annexed with the charge sheet, indicated that the applicant and the complainant cohabited as husband and wife in a consensual relationship. The complainant, a housewife originally from West Bengal, had lodged a report on March 3, 2020, at Chakradhar Nagar Police Station, Raigarh. She alleged that after her marriage, she moved to Bilaspur where she met the applicant at an NGO office. According to her, the man promised to keep her as his wife, rented a separate house, and sexually exploited her since 2008. She further stated that she later moved to Raigarh with her children and continued to live with the man, who allegedly continued to sexually abuse her under the false promise of marriage. The applicant's counsel pointed out that the complainant was already married, having solemnised her marriage in 1991. It was further submitted that her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, as well as a complaint she filed at the Sakhi One Stop Center, Raigarh, on February 4, 2020, clearly identified the applicant as her husband. In that complaint, she stated that she had a "love marriage" with him twelve years ago and had three children from the relationship. She had sought advice to ensure that her husband fulfilled his marital obligations. Additionally, the applicant's counsel informed the court that he had lodged a complaint with the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur, on February 25, 2020, regarding the complainant's conduct and inconsistencies in her government identification documents. The documents reportedly showed her using different names and identifying herself as the applicant's wife on several official records. The High Court observed that the complainant had been residing with the applicant since 2008 with her own consent and had engaged in a consensual physical relationship. It also noted that she had changed her husband's name to that of the applicant on government ID cards, reinforcing the view that she had willingly lived with him. The court reiterated that there is no universal formula for determining whether consent was voluntary or given under a misconception, and that each case must be assessed on its unique facts and surrounding circumstances. Concluding that the applicant had made a valid case for judicial interference, the High Court quashed the rape charge against him.
