Law:

Section:

Section 64, read with Section 160 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 16(3), read with section 40 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Transfer of assets - For benefit of spouse, etc. - Assessment year 1952-53 - Whether within class that falls within purview of section 16(3)(a)(ii) of 1922 Act there is no inequality in operation of taxing provision and classification being reasonable, there is no denial of equal protection of laws within meaning of article 14 of Constitution - Held, yes - Whether section 16(3)(a)(ii) and section 40 of 1922 Act are different in scope and content and are intended to serve different purposes and, therefore, there is no conflict between these two provisions - Held, yes FACTS The assessee was a partner in certain firm along with his two major sons and a minor son who had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. In the assessment year 1952-53, the assessee's income was computed and therein was included the income pertaining to the share of his minor son, according to the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the 1922 Act. The assessee preferred no appeal against the said assessment order. On 30-12-1954, the assessment was revised under section 35 of the 1922 Act after obtaining the concurrence of the assessee by adopting the correct share of income from the various firms in which he was a partner. The assessee preferred an appeal against the latter order, which was dismissed by the AAC. A further revision filed by him before the Commissioner was also dismissed. In the instant writ petition, the assessee challenged the validity of the proceedings before the ITO on the ground that section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the 1922 Act, conflicts with section 40 of the 1922 Act and consequently, was ineffective; that co-existence of sections 40 and 16(3)(a)(ii) of the 1922 Act is contrary to the scheme of the Act; and that the impugned provision also offends article 14 of the Constitution in that it discriminates against the father in the matter of taxation. The respondent ITO contended that the instant writ petition having been filed after four and a half years from the date of the order, without exhausting the alternative…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492