Home ›

Search Results For: 278E

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 28, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 13, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Prosecution u/s 276-C/277: S. 278E carves out an exception to the rule of mens rea. The burden of proving the absence of mens rea is upon the accused. The absence needs to be proved not only to the basic threshold of “preponderance of probability” but “beyond reasonable doubt”. In every prosecution case, the Court shall always presume culpable mental state and it is for the accused to prove the contrary beyond reasonable doubt. This presumption is a rebuttable one

When a calculating tax dodger finds it a profitable proposition to carry on evading taxes over the years, if the only risk to which he is exposed is a monetary penalty in the year in which he happens to be caught. The public in general also tends to lose faith and confidence in tax administration when a tax evader is caught, but the administration lets him get away lightly after paying only a monetary penalty- when money is no longer a major consideration with him if it serves his business interest

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 28, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 29, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 276B, 279(1), 278E Prosecution for non-deposit of TDS: In the case of default, Mens rea has to be presumed to exist. It is for the accused to prove the contrary and that too beyond reasonable doubt. The plea that default in payment of TDS occurred due to delay by department in refunding excess TDS due to the assessee is not acceptable because amount deducted by way of TDS has to be deposited within prescribed time irrespective of any counter claim of the assessee

The plea of accused that since the complainant department has delayed the refund of TDS, therefore, the default occurred is not maintainable as the amount deducted by way of TDS is to be deposited within prescribed time irrespective of any counter claim of the assessee. CW-1 has stated that the refund takes about six months for processing and accused cannot take benefit of delay in release of the refund amount. Another plea of recession in the hospitality section is also not maintainable as discussed above

Read more ›