9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of section 4(2) of the Income-tax Act under article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Legislative competence of the Indian Legislature in enacting section 4(2) in 1939. 3. Constitutionality of section 4(2) under article 14 of the Constitution. 4. Discrimination against the wife in terms of privileges and exemptions under the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case was the validity of section 4(2) of the Income-tax Act, which deemed remittances received by a wife from a non-resident husband as her income. The petitioner, a resident in taxable territories, was assessed to income tax on remittances received from her non-resident husband. The contention was that the remittances were not to the petitioner but to another individual for maintenance, which was rejected by the Income-tax Officer. The court considered the legislative competence and constitutionality of section 4(2) in light of the constitutional provisions. 2. The challenge to the legislative competence of the Indian Legislature in enacting section 4(2) was based on whether it fell within the scope of entry 54 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, which pertained to "Taxes on income other than agricultural income." The court held that section 4(2) was a tax on income, not remittances, as it deemed the wife's income to be that portion of the non-resident husband's income remitted to her. The legal fiction aimed to shift the tax burden to the wife, a resident in taxable territories, was within the legislative competence. 3. The constitutionality of section 4(2) under article 14 of the Constitution was also challenged, alleging discrimination against the wife as the only individual singled out for taxation in such circumstances. The court reasoned that the classification was reasonable as it served the legislative purpose of taxing income and was justified by the unity established by marriage under personal laws. The legal fiction of deeming the wife's income from the husband's remittances within taxable territories was upheld as not violating article 14. 4. Further arguments were raised regarding discrimination against the wife in terms of privileges and exemptions under the Act, specifically regarding section 4(3)(vii) exemptions for casual and non-recurring receipts. The court found that the legal fiction of section 4(2) excluded certain exemptions, but this was justified by the underlying principle of taxing the husband's income remitted to the wife within taxable territories. The court concluded that section 4(2) did not amount to denial of equal protection of laws guaranteed by article 14, upholding its validity and dismissing the petition.
|
