9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income Tax (22nd Amendment) Rules 2001 by notification dated 25.09.2001 on the ground that the same is hit by the vice of excessive delegation - HELD THAT:- Section 17(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f., 01.04.2002 provision has been substituted by the Finance Act, 2005 (18 of 2005 w.e.f., 01.04.2006) and thereafter, the same has been substituted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 (33 of 2009). Therefore, the challenge to the aforesaid provision has been rendered academic by efflux of time. The petitioner has assailed the validity of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as substituted by the Income Tax (22nd Amendment) Rules, 2001. The validity of the aforesaid provision has been examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax (22nd Amendment) Rules 2001 by the second respondent under its Notification No. S.O. 940(E) dated 25.09.2001 as illegal and unconstitutional, being hit by the vice of excessive delegation, and and pass such other relief or reliefs, as this honourable court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case". 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner-association has assailed the validity of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 (Act No. 14 of 2001) w.e.f., 01.04.2002). The petitioner-association also seeks to challenge the validity of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as substituted by the Income Tax (22nd Amendment) Rules 2001 by notification dated 25.09.2001 on the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charged by the employer". The aforesaid provision has been substituted by the Finance Act, 2005 (18 of 2005 w.e.f., 01.04.2006) and thereafter, the same has been substituted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 (33 of 2009). Therefore, the challenge to the aforesaid provision has been rendered academic by efflux of time. 6. The petitioner has assailed the validity of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as substituted by the Income Tax (22nd Amendment) Rules, 2001. The validity of the aforesaid provision has been examined by various High Courts. In P.N. TIWARI V. UNION OF INDIA (2003) 133 Taxman 482, the Allahabad High Court upheld the validity of Rule 3. Similarly, in BHEL EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA [2003] 128 Taxman 309, a D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
