<?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>2010 (8) TMI 715 - Punjab and Haryana High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208683</link>
    <description>Section 3AA of the Punjab State Legislative Assembly (Salaries and Allowances of Members) Act, 1942 was examined against legislative competence and Article 14. The provision did not levy income-tax, alter the Union taxing field, or exempt Members of Legislative Assembly from tax; it only required the State Government to bear the tax payable on their salaries and allowances. Applying pith and substance, any incidental overlap with income-tax did not invalidate the measure, and the State law was not beyond competence. The classification was also upheld because it rested on a rational basis and merely shifted the payment burden without creating unconstitutional discrimination. The challenge therefore failed on both grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 715 - Punjab and Haryana High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208683</link>
      <description>Section 3AA of the Punjab State Legislative Assembly (Salaries and Allowances of Members) Act, 1942 was examined against legislative competence and Article 14. The provision did not levy income-tax, alter the Union taxing field, or exempt Members of Legislative Assembly from tax; it only required the State Government to bear the tax payable on their salaries and allowances. Applying pith and substance, any incidental overlap with income-tax did not invalidate the measure, and the State law was not beyond competence. The classification was also upheld because it rested on a rational basis and merely shifted the payment burden without creating unconstitutional discrimination. The challenge therefore failed on both grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208683</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>