https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168877 Section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was upheld as a valid anti-evasion measure because the legislative entry was read broadly to include powers to prevent tax avoidance as well as impose tax. The provision's focus on partnerships involving a husband with his wife or minor children was held to rest on an intelligible differentia rationally connected to the object of curbing income-splitting, so it did not offend Article 14. The Court also held that the narrow restriction served the public interest in preventing evasion and imposed only reasonable restrictions, so it did not infringe Article 19(1)(f) or Article 19(1)(g). en-us Fri, 04 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Apr 2015 11:34:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168877 Section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was upheld as a valid anti-evasion measure because the legislative entry was read broadly to include powers to prevent tax avoidance as well as impose tax. The provision's focus on partnerships involving a husband with his wife or minor children was held to rest on an intelligible differentia rationally connected to the object of curbing income-splitting, so it did not offend Article 14. The Court also held that the narrow restriction served the public interest in preventing evasion and imposed only reasonable restrictions, so it did not infringe Article 19(1)(f) or Article 19(1)(g). Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168877