9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the constitutional validity of sections 44AC and 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on grounds of legislative competence and discrimination. Analysis: The petitioner, an abkari contractor and an assessee under the Income-tax Act, challenged the constitutional validity of section 44AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, contending it to be ultra vires the Constitution. The petitioner also sought a reconsideration of earlier decisions upholding the provision. Previous judgments by a single judge and a Bench of the court had affirmed the validity of the provision. The original petition was dismissed by the learned single judge, and a review petition was also rejected. The main grounds of attack on sections 44AC and 206C of the Income-tax Act were that they were beyond legislative competence and discriminatory. The court considered these aspects in detail, referring to previous judgments that upheld the legislation as valid. The device of presumptive taxation was highlighted as an effective measure against evasion in specific business types like liquor, timber, and forest produce. The court emphasized the importance of stringent measures in certain trades and found no arbitrariness in the enactment of the law. The appellant's counsel argued that the legislation was invalid and caused hardship to the assessee. However, the court, after considering the matter extensively based on previous judgments, upheld the validity of the legislation. The court concurred with the decision of the learned single judge and dismissed the writ appeal challenging the constitutional validity of sections 44AC and 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In conclusion, the writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity of sections 44AC and 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and rejecting the challenges based on legislative competence and discrimination.
|
