<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1962 (8) TMI 67 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152207</link>
    <description>Section 2A of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, as amended, was upheld against an Article 14 challenge because the geographical classification between the Madras area and the Travancore-Cochin area had a rational basis linked to the State reorganisation and the object of bringing agriculturists in the Madras area into the tax net on equal footing. In fiscal legislation, the legislature has wide latitude in choosing classifications and in prescribing a method for determining average annual income and tax rate. The Court found that any hardship was confined to fortuitous cases and did not make the method capricious, arbitrary, fanciful, or clearly unjust. The temporary nature of the provision also supported its reasonableness.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Dec 2013 10:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169245" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (8) TMI 67 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152207</link>
      <description>Section 2A of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, as amended, was upheld against an Article 14 challenge because the geographical classification between the Madras area and the Travancore-Cochin area had a rational basis linked to the State reorganisation and the object of bringing agriculturists in the Madras area into the tax net on equal footing. In fiscal legislation, the legislature has wide latitude in choosing classifications and in prescribing a method for determining average annual income and tax rate. The Court found that any hardship was confined to fortuitous cases and did not make the method capricious, arbitrary, fanciful, or clearly unjust. The temporary nature of the provision also supported its reasonableness.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152207</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>