https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170653 Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act was upheld as a valid income-tax measure: the court treated the provision as falling within the Central Legislature's competence under Entry 54 of List I because it continued to operate on income, even though the minor child's income was included in the parent's assessment. It further held that the provision did not restrict the freedom to practise a profession or carry on business under Article 19(1)(g), since it affected only the mode of assessment. The court also found no Article 14 breach, holding that the classification of parents with minor children admitted to partnership benefits was real, substantial, and rationally connected to preventing tax avoidance. en-us Tue, 16 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jun 2015 15:10:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170653 Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act was upheld as a valid income-tax measure: the court treated the provision as falling within the Central Legislature's competence under Entry 54 of List I because it continued to operate on income, even though the minor child's income was included in the parent's assessment. It further held that the provision did not restrict the freedom to practise a profession or carry on business under Article 19(1)(g), since it affected only the mode of assessment. The court also found no Article 14 breach, holding that the classification of parents with minor children admitted to partnership benefits was real, substantial, and rationally connected to preventing tax avoidance. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170653