9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1993 (4) TMI 33 - HC - Income TaxExemption U/S 10(10) And U/s. 10(10aa), Exemptions, Government Employees And Private Sector Employees, Gratuity
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Sections 10(10) and 10(10AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Interpretation of the term "salary" in Sections 10(10) and 10(10AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of Sections 10(10) and 10(10AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The petitioner challenged the provisions of Sections 10(10) and 10(10AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, claiming they were discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that these sections create an arbitrary classification between Central and State Government employees and employees of statutory corporations and the private sector, which lacks a rational nexus to the objective of the legislation. The court examined the petitioner's contention that all employees form a single class concerning the object of Sections 10(10) and 10(10AA) and should not be discriminated against based on their employer. The petitioner cited the Supreme Court's judgment in S. K. Dutta, ITO v. Lawrence Singh Ingty [1968] 68 ITR 272, which held that excluding Government servants from certain exemptions was unconstitutional. However, the court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Shashikant Laxman Kale v. Union of India [1990] 185 ITR 104, which upheld the validity of Section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act. The court noted that the Legislature has wide discretion in making classifications for taxation purposes and that such classifications are permissible if they have a rational nexus with the objective of the law. The court observed that the distinction between Government employees and other employees in Sections 10(10) and 10(10AA) is based on sound reasoning and is not arbitrary. The court further explained that the public sector's role in promoting the national economy justifies different treatment for its employees. The classification aims to improve the performance of the public sector, which is crucial for the national economy. The court concluded that the classification in Sections 10(10) and 10(10AA) is valid and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Interpretation of the term "salary" in Sections 10(10) and 10(10AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The petitioner contended that the term "salary" in Sections 10(10) and 10(10AA) should include all allowances and amounts received by the employee, similar to the broader definition under Section 58F of the old Income-tax Act of 1922. The petitioner argued that the term should not be restricted by the definition in clause (h) of rule 2 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule. The court rejected this contention, citing the Explanation in Section 10(10) of the Income-tax Act, which explicitly states that "salary" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (h) of rule 2 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule. According to this clause, "salary" includes dearness allowance, if the terms of employment so provide, but excludes all other allowances and perquisites. The court noted that this definition is clear and unambiguous and must be applied when interpreting Sections 10(10) and 10(10AA). The court also pointed out that there is no general definition of "salary" applicable to all provisions of the Income-tax Act. Different sections of the Act may have specific definitions tailored to their context. Therefore, the petitioner's argument for a broader interpretation of "salary" in Sections 10(10) and 10(10AA) was deemed untenable. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Sections 10(10) and 10(10AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are constitutional and do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The classification between Government employees and other employees is valid and based on rational considerations. Additionally, the term "salary" in these sections must be interpreted according to the specific definition provided in clause (h) of rule 2 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule, which excludes all other allowances and perquisites except dearness allowance. The petitioner was advised to raise any further contentions before the concerned income-tax authorities.
|
