Turnover mismatches under percentage-completion accounting cannot alone establish suppressed income where customer advances remain recorded as liabili...
Territorial jurisdiction for money-laundering trials is revised for specified districts, replacing earlier court-area entries under the statutory fram...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
761 to 780 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
