Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeCompany & PMLAED Raids BC Jindal Group Over Alleged FEMA Violations, Probes ₹505 Crore...

ED Raids BC Jindal Group Over Alleged FEMA Violations, Probes ₹505 Crore Overseas Fund Diversion

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has launched a major probe into the BC Jindal Group over alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). 

The financial crime agency carried out search operations on September 18 and 19 at 13 locations linked to the group and its associates in Delhi-NCR and Hyderabad.

The crackdown targets suspected irregularities involving group entities including Jindal India Thermal Power Ltd (JITPL), Jindal India Powertech Ltd (JIPL), and Jindal Poly Films Ltd (JPFL). The ED is investigating alleged round-tripping of funds, diversion of investor money, and questionable overseas investments.

Alleged Diversion of Investor Funds

Officials allege that companies owned by Shyam Sundar Jindal, his wife Shubhdra Jindal, and son Bhavesh Jindal remitted around ₹505.14 crore to their Dubai-based entity, Topaz Enterprise DMCC. These funds were then reportedly used to acquire Garnet Enterprise DMCC, another offshore company, under the pretext of overseas direct investment.

The financial trail, as per investigators, dates back to 2013–2017, when JPFL invested ₹703.79 crore into JIPL, which subsequently channelled the money into JITPL’s Odisha coal-based power project. Instead of recovering this large investment, JPFL allegedly wrote it off in FY 2018–19 and sold the stake to promoter-linked companies at a steep loss — a move the ED believes was aimed at siphoning off public investors’ money.

In May 2024, JIPL redeemed preferential shares worth ₹853.72 crore from JITPL. However, instead of repaying JPFL, a major portion — ₹505.14 crore — was allegedly diverted to Topaz Enterprise DMCC, controlled by the Jindal family, for acquiring Garnet Enterprise DMCC.

Manipulated Valuations & Overseas Entities

During the searches, the ED claims to have recovered evidence suggesting that valuation reports were manipulated to justify inflated remittances abroad. Investigators further suspect that funds were routed through a complex web of shell entities across multiple jurisdictions including the Netherlands, USA, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Singapore, China, UAE, and Germany. These overseas ventures, officials say, were ultimately beneficially owned by the Jindal family.

Promoter Absent During Raids

Sources also confirmed that Shyam Sundar Jindal was in Hong Kong during the raids and has not yet appeared before investigators. The ED has indicated that he is expected to join the probe.

Seizures and Ongoing Probe

The agency stated that several incriminating documents related to overseas acquisitions and financial control were seized during the searches. “The investigation is ongoing to trace the end-use of remitted funds and to establish the role of various group companies and their promoters,” the ED noted.

The BC Jindal Group, a diversified conglomerate with business interests spanning power, packaging films, and steel, has not yet issued an official statement in response to the ED’s action.

Read More: Hotels Nationwide Face GST Demand Notices Over Restaurant Service Underpayments

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Are GST Orders Passed After the Hearing Date Invalid? GSTAT Split Sends Issue to Larger Bench

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Prayagraj Bench, has delivered a split...

Quashing Income Tax Search Doesn’t Automatically Invalidate Case Transfer Or Subsequent Notices: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that setting aside an income tax...

Excess Excise Duty Must Be Adjusted Against Short-Payment When Final Assessment Is Based on Annual Costing: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a central excise duty demand of ₹1.16...

Berry Ratio Inapplicable To Jewellery Manufacturer: ITAT Deletes Rs. 105.06 Crore Transfer Pricing Adjustments 

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted transfer pricing...

More like this

Are GST Orders Passed After the Hearing Date Invalid? GSTAT Split Sends Issue to Larger Bench

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Prayagraj Bench, has delivered a split...

Quashing Income Tax Search Doesn’t Automatically Invalidate Case Transfer Or Subsequent Notices: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that setting aside an income tax...

Excess Excise Duty Must Be Adjusted Against Short-Payment When Final Assessment Is Based on Annual Costing: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a central excise duty demand of ₹1.16...