NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday after listening to petitions filed by Sonia Gandhi and Oscar Fernandes in reference to Rahul Gandhi 's plea against reopening of income tax assessment proceedings in Young India case has now posted the matter to August 16 for the rest of the arguments.

Here is a look at the past developments that have occurred so far:

* BJP leader Subramanian Swamy had filed a PIL alleging fraud in the acquisition of Associated Journals Limited (AJL) by Young India Pvt Ltd -- in which Sonia and Rahul Gandhi each owned a 38 per cent stake in November 2012. AJL is the publisher of the National Herald Newspaper.

* On January 20, 2018, the court of metropolitan magistrate Ambika Singh had ordered the documents, submitted by Swamy, to be kept in a sealed cover till next hearing. Swamy, in his plea, had alleged that the Congress party granted an interest-free loan of Rs. 90.25 crore to AJL, the owner of the National Herald newspaper.

*In November last year, the two Congress leaders had filed their response to the application filed by Swamy. In their response, they had stated that the application filed by Swamy was not bona fide and was filed with the sole object of "delaying the proceedings in a lifeless case".

*Swamy had accused them of “conspiring to cheat” and “misappropriating funds” by paying “only” Rs 50 lakh, by which Young Indian Pvt Ltd obtained the right to recover Rs 90.25 crore which AJL owed to the Congress. Former Congress President Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul Gandhi, party leaders Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda and Young Indian are accused in the case.

*On August 8 this year, the Delhi High Court rejected Rahul Gandhi's counsel’s request to grant interim relief from any coercive steps related to recovery by I-T department. Additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who was representing I-T department, had informed the court that the tax department has re-opened tax assessment against Rahul Gandhi as he has suppressed information that he was a director in Young India.

*Rahul Gandhi's counsel, defending their stance, had said that there was no tax liability as Rahul Gandhi did not receive any income through it. The court had also rejected Rahul Gandhi's counsel plea seeking restraint on publishing news by various media organisations on the case.

(With inputs from PTI)

