Case 1 : Capital gains tax exemption on agriculture allowed even without farming
In a recent case — Ashok Chaganlal Thakkar VS National Faceless Assessment Centre —, the Bombay High Court rejected the contention of the department that the assessee had neither carried out any agricultural activity nor had any intention to do so as evident from the sale of small parcels of land from time to time. The High Court rejected this contention and held that the requirement was that the land should be agricultural and not necessarily the one where farming went on.
At a time when there is a demand for taxing agricultural income exempt from income tax under section 10(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961, such escape route available to pretenders needs to be plugged. Indeed, the phenomenon of farm houses itself is a huge sham enacted with full official acquiescence. Ali Bagh on the outskirts of Mumbai and Mehrauli on the outskirts of Delhi for example are inhabited by the who is who of the rich and famous who have nothing to do with farming but whose only purpose is to enjoy luxurious living away from the dust and din of the urban centres. The definition of such conveniently located farms is tailor-made to enactment of the sham — located beyond 8 km from the local limited of notified municipalities.
Income from one self-occupied residential house is deemed to be nil whereas the income from more than one self-occupied residential house is deemed to be the market rent. However, farm houses are exempt in any case. This is a clear case of abuse of the provision designed to facilitate real agricultural operations in rural areas.
Successive governments have fought shy of ending this farce except Yashwant Sinha the then Finance Minister in Vajpayee government who brought to tax rent earned from marriages conducted on farm houses. He said enough was enough — wedding is by no means farming!
Case 2: Dying declaration must be trustworthy as to render corroboration unnecessary
In an appeal matter (Naeem VS State of UP), the Supreme Court recently shed considerable light on dying declaration as irrefutable evidence. Contrary to the popular notion that a dying declaration was sacrosanct under the sentimental notion that a dying person will not lie as he would like to meet his maker with a clear conscience, the Apex Court held that corroborative evidence can be dispensed with only when the court after careful scrutiny is satisfied it is trustworthy.
The dying declaration must be true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement. In the present case the Apex Court was satisfied that the dying declaration wasn’t vitiated by any bias or inducement. The medical officer’s declaration that she made such declaration in a clear state of mind made the dying declaration genuine and credible.
Case 3: E-commerce platforms should not aid impostors
The Delhi High Court has recently in Abhi Traders VS Fashnear Technologies Pvt Ltd & others case, reminded e-commerce platforms of their obligations under the Consumer Protection (E- Commerce) Rules, 2020, notified on July 23, 2020, to give full disclosure of the seller — name, address, email address, customer care number etc.
Under the market place model, the e-commerce platform is used both by buyers and sellers who are able to sell their wares thanks to the selling, billing and cash collection infrastructure put in place by the e-commerce portal. Abhi traders was selling garments on Meesho.com and found to its dismay that eight imitators were using its product images and photos to sell their own wares from the same platform.
Justice Narula restrained the 8 known defendants, “along with any other sellers” who were showcasing their products on the Meesho.com platform, from reproducing, copying, publishing, or imitating any designs of the plaintiff's clothing.
It is significant that the court let off e-commerce firm Meesho only with a stern direction to make these impostors details available. Indeed, e-commerce platforms taking advantage of the marketplace model shrug off their own liability on the ground that they do not have control over the thousands of sellers onboarding their platforms. The jury is still out on if e-commerce platforms should be handled with such velvet gloves.
(Edited by : C H Unnikrishnan)
First Published: Mar 13, 2024 5:06 PM IST
