Jurisprudentiol-Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Unexplained delay in passing and service of detention order - Also delay beyond 5 days in service of Grounds of Detention upon detenue with Relied upon Documents - Exceptional circumstances to justify delay absent - Detention order set aside: HC

IT is the case of the Petitioner that there is an unexplained and immense delay of about 8 months in passing of the detention order. The prosecution in respect of the alleged recovery of red sanders - which took place on 28.09.2013, was lodged on 28.11.2013 - meaning thereby, that the investigation was complete, while the detention order was passed only on 25.07.2014 and, therefore, on account of the aforesaid delay, the live link between the alleged occurrence - namely the recovery of red sanders, and the object of detention, stood snapped. It is pointed out that the detenue had been granted bail on 22.02.2014. However, the detention order was passed only on 25.07.2014, i.e. five months after the detenue was set at large.

Income Tax

Whether when husband gives interest-free cash loan to wife to buy a residential house, such amounts are to be clubbed with net wealth of husband as it falls within purview of 'asset' as defined in Act - NO: ITAT

THE assessee, a famous Bollywood Actor, declared net wealth of Rs.2,75,28,460/- in his wealth tax return. The AO accepted the wealth declared by the assessee by passing an order u/s 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act. The wife of the assessee, Ms.Gauri Khan, purchased a residential house at Delhi for Rs.1,65,95,000/- and jewellery worth Rs.70,22,658/- out of the loan of Rs.2,28,88,530/- given by the assessee. The AO was of the view that wealth of the assessee escaped assessment, therefore, the loan amount was to be clubbed in the hands of the assessee for computation of his net wealth. He further observed that the jewellery would have been purchased by the assessee which he deliberately avoided, thus, there was indirect "transfer of asset" to the wife, by the assessee, within the meaning of provision of section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act, the transferred amount is to be included in the net wealth of the assessee. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) affirmed the view of the AO.

The issues before the Bench are - Whether when husband gives interest-free cash loan to wife to buy a residential house, such amounts are to be clubbed with net wealth of husband as it falls within purview of 'asset' as defined in Act and Whether giving interest free loan to wife for buying assets can be considered as a strategy to remain below the maximum tax bracket, although the assessee is already paying the tax at a maximum rate. NO is the answer of the Tribunal.

Service Tax

While interpretational support from later legislative developments is not to be spurned, such a support is unwarranted when there exists no ambiguity - services are not executionery but advisory - conversion of Management Consultancy Service into Management or Business Consultancy Service would make no difference about appellants' liability: CESTAT

THE definition of "Management Consultant" is so worded that the services performed by the appellants clearly fall within its scope and for that one has to read the definition of "Management Consultant" vis-à-vis the description of impugned services to come to such finding. The expressions like "any service", "either directly or indirectly", "in-connection with the management", "in any manner" appearing in the definition of 'Management Consultancy Service' are expressions which are expansionary rather than restrictive. Thus, this definition is wide enough to include advisory services rendered in connection with the management of an organisation.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements