9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge of deduction at source from jackpot winnings. 2. Interpretation of income tax laws regarding winnings from races and gambling. 3. Applicability of relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1972. 4. Legal obligations of the second respondent under sections 194BB and 203. 5. Conversion of writ petition from mandamus to certiorarified mandamus. Analysis: The petitioner won a jackpot at the Madras Race Course and challenged the deduction of income tax by the second respondent. The petitioner argued that income earned from hobbies or habits should not be taxed, citing a previous court decision. However, the respondents pointed out amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 1972, which expanded the definition of income to include winnings from races and gambling. This change eliminated the exemption previously available for casual and non-recurring receipts, rendering the petitioner's reliance on the old court decision ineffective. The Finance Act, 1972, introduced amendments that specifically included income from horse races under the head "Income from other sources" for taxation purposes. The judgment clarified that the petitioner's contention against the deduction at source was not valid in light of these legislative changes. Sections 194BB and 203 were highlighted to emphasize the statutory obligations of the second respondent regarding income tax deduction and proper procedures for addressing any excess deductions. Originally seeking a mandamus to prevent income tax deduction, the petitioner was allowed to convert the petition into one for certiorarified mandamus due to the deduction already being made. The court held that, based on the current legal provisions and amendments, relief could not be granted to the petitioner. Despite relying on a past court judgment that was no longer applicable, the petitioner's contentions were deemed invalid, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition without costs.
|
