Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
The Delhi High Court examined the constitutional validity of an amendment in the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically u/s 31 of the Finance Act, 2017. The petitioner challenged the retrospective operation of the amendment which capped set-off of losses from house property income at ₹2 lakh. The court held that the legislative competency was not in question, and the amendment did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution as it applied uniformly to all taxpayers. The court also found that the restriction on set-off was a reasonable measure to prevent abuse of provisions. The petitioner's argument u/A 19(1)(g) was rejected as the restriction was proportionate and did not unreasonably curtail rights. The court cited precedent to support the legislature's wide discretion in fiscal matters. The petitioner's claim of promissory estoppel was dismissed. Ultimately, the court upheld the constitutionality of the amendment, ruling against the petitioner's arguments.
The Delhi High Court examined the constitutional validity of an amendment in the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically u/s 31 of the Finance Act, 2017. The petitioner challenged the retrospective operation of the amendment which capped set-off of losses from house property income at ₹2 lakh. The court held that the legislative competency was not in question, and the amendment did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution as it applied uniformly to all taxpayers. The court also found that the restriction on set-off was a reasonable measure to prevent abuse of provisions. The petitioner's argument u/A 19(1)(g) was rejected as the restriction was proportionate and did not unreasonably curtail rights. The court cited precedent to support the legislature's wide discretion in fiscal matters. The petitioner's claim of promissory estoppel was dismissed. Ultimately, the court upheld the constitutionality of the amendment, ruling against the petitioner's arguments.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
