https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373979 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 10(34) of the Income Tax Act. It upheld the interpretation of Section 115BBDA, ruling that the differential treatment between resident and non-resident assessees is permissible. The exclusion of companies from Section 115BBDA was justified to avoid cascading tax effects. The court also supported the under-classification of non-resident assessees based on policy discretion. Overall, the judgment found no merit in the challenges raised and provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal issues within the tax legislation and constitutional framework. en-us Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:39:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373979 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 10(34) of the Income Tax Act. It upheld the interpretation of Section 115BBDA, ruling that the differential treatment between resident and non-resident assessees is permissible. The exclusion of companies from Section 115BBDA was justified to avoid cascading tax effects. The court also supported the under-classification of non-resident assessees based on policy discretion. Overall, the judgment found no merit in the challenges raised and provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal issues within the tax legislation and constitutional framework. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373979