Jurisprudentiol - Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.NDPS

First Time Offenders who are poor - Sentence reduced to 10 years from 15 years and imprisonment of three years in lieu of fine reduced to six months: SC

IT is projected that both the appellants are first time offenders and there is no past antecedent about their involvement in offence of like nature on earlier occasions. Sentence reduced to 10 years, which is the minimum prescribed sentence under the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act. It was their first offence and if they fail to pay the amount of fine as per the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, they have to remain in jail for a period of 3 years in addition to the period of substantive sentence because of their inability to pay the fine. Serious prejudice will be caused not only to them but also to their family members who are innocent. Default sentence reduced to six months.

Income Tax

Whether when assessee actually receives no gifts from NRIs but mis-declares large sums as gifts on capital account, detection of such receipts during a Search is to be treated as undisclosed income - YES: HC

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether when the assessee actually receives no gifts from NRIs but mis-declares large sums as gifts on capital account, detection of such receipts during a Search is to be treated as undisclosed income; Whether the evidence found during the search can alone be a basis for block assessment; Whether where the gifts received by the assessee are found to be not genuine, then the amounts represented by those gifts become undisclosed income and hence covered under block assessment; Whether the burden of proof is on the assessee in terms of Section 158BB(3) of the Act to satisfy the AO that the so called undisclosed income has already been disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee and Whether mere mentioning of an amount as capital receipt in the Capital Account would not amount to a disclosure of income. And the verdict goes against the assessee.

Service Tax

Bullock-carts prima facie cannot be considered as machinery, equipment or appliances, hence, giving on hire bullock-carts cannot be considered as 'supply of tangible goods for use' - Stay petition allowed and matter remanded as Commr(A) had not decided appeal on merits: CESTAT

IN the present case, the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses and the applicants are only supplying bullock-carts and they have entered into an agreement with one Seva Sangh and under that agreement the bullock-carts were given to the Sangh for transporting the sugarcane to the factory. The contention of the applicant is that bullock-carts cannot be treated as equipment, machinery or appliances. Therefore, the applicants are not liable to pay service tax under the supply of tangible goods service. Hence, the demand is not sustainable.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements