9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the vires of section 10(14)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on excessive delegation of legislative power by Parliament to the Central Government and the absence of exemption for city compensatory allowance and dearness allowance. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a challenge against the vires of section 10(14)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners contended that there was excessive delegation of legislative power by Parliament to the Central Government, and the delegated power was unguided and uncanalised. The crux of the challenge was the Central Government's inaction in exempting city compensatory allowance and dearness allowance by not including them in the exemption notification. The court examined the definition of income under section 2(24) of the Act, which includes special allowances or benefits granted to meet specific expenses or compensate for increased living costs. The counsel agreed that city compensatory allowance and dearness allowance fell under this definition, making them part of the income as per the Act. Section 10 of the Act deals with incomes not to be included in the total income of the assessee. The issue at hand concerned clause (14)(ii) of section 10, which required specific incomes to be exempted by the Central Government through a notification. The court analyzed the delegation of power from Parliament to the Central Government under sub-clause (ii) of clause (14) of section 10. It found that the delegation was neither excessive nor unguided, dismissing the argument against it. Even if the delegation of power was deemed invalid, the court noted that petitioners would not benefit as the Central Government would lose the authority to issue notifications exempting the allowances. The judgment emphasized that the two allowances would be considered part of the income unless exempted by the Central Government. The court cited decisions from other High Courts to support its view. Consequently, the court held that the writ petitions challenging the vires of section 10(14)(ii) lacked merit and dismissed them without costs. In conclusion, the judgment reaffirmed the inclusion of city compensatory allowance and dearness allowance in the income as defined by the Act. It upheld the validity of the delegation of power to the Central Government and rejected the challenge against the vires of section 10(14)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court's decision was supported by precedents from other High Courts, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions.
|
