https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199336 A writ petition under Article 226 filed after about four and a half years was held barred by laches because the delay was unexplained and discretionary relief was not warranted. Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, which includes a minor's income in the father's total income to prevent tax evasion, was upheld as constitutionally valid since the classification had a rational nexus with the legislative object and did not violate Article 14. The provision was also found not to conflict with Section 40, because Section 16(3)(a)(ii) fixes the incidence of tax while Section 40 is a separate machinery provision for assessment and recovery. en-us Tue, 22 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Feb 2018 18:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199336 A writ petition under Article 226 filed after about four and a half years was held barred by laches because the delay was unexplained and discretionary relief was not warranted. Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, which includes a minor's income in the father's total income to prevent tax evasion, was upheld as constitutionally valid since the classification had a rational nexus with the legislative object and did not violate Article 14. The provision was also found not to conflict with Section 40, because Section 16(3)(a)(ii) fixes the incidence of tax while Section 40 is a separate machinery provision for assessment and recovery. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 22 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199336