<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1965 (10) TMI 80 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279473</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the annuity deposit scheme in Chapter XXII-A of the Income-tax Act as within Parliament&#039;s legislative competence under Article 246 read with Entry 82 of List I, finding it closely connected to taxation on income and not a colourable exercise of power. It also rejected the Article 14 challenge, holding that the income threshold, graduated rates, exemptions, and age-based relief had a rational nexus with the objectives of mobilising private savings and checking inflation. The Court further held that the scheme was not invalid merely because it was onerous or involved compulsory deposit with an option to pay additional tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:26:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=563454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (10) TMI 80 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279473</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the annuity deposit scheme in Chapter XXII-A of the Income-tax Act as within Parliament&#039;s legislative competence under Article 246 read with Entry 82 of List I, finding it closely connected to taxation on income and not a colourable exercise of power. It also rejected the Article 14 challenge, holding that the income threshold, graduated rates, exemptions, and age-based relief had a rational nexus with the objectives of mobilising private savings and checking inflation. The Court further held that the scheme was not invalid merely because it was onerous or involved compulsory deposit with an option to pay additional tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>