Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
