https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6188 Section 23(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended, treated a registered firm and its partners as separate taxable units and validly authorised tax on both the firm's income and the partners' shares; the challenge based on impermissible double taxation failed. Section 297(2)(g) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, validly used the date of completion of assessment to classify pending and completed matters for penalty purposes, because penalty could be determined only after assessment and the distinction had a rational nexus with preventing tax evasion. Section 271(2) validly placed a registered firm on the same penalty footing as an unregistered firm, as the legislature could withdraw the benefit of registration in the penalty context. The constitutional challenges were rejected. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Dec 2013 15:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6188 Section 23(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended, treated a registered firm and its partners as separate taxable units and validly authorised tax on both the firm's income and the partners' shares; the challenge based on impermissible double taxation failed. Section 297(2)(g) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, validly used the date of completion of assessment to classify pending and completed matters for penalty purposes, because penalty could be determined only after assessment and the distinction had a rational nexus with preventing tax evasion. Section 271(2) validly placed a registered firm on the same penalty footing as an unregistered firm, as the legislature could withdraw the benefit of registration in the penalty context. The constitutional challenges were rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6188