https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22723 Section 44AA of the Income-tax Act was upheld against an Article 14 challenge because the distinction between enumerated professions and other occupations was treated as a reasonable classification. Advocates, chartered accountants, doctors and engineers were regarded as a separate class due to statutory regulation and heavier record-keeping obligations, while occupations such as street vendors and hawkers were not similarly situated. The monetary threshold for non-enumerated professions was accepted as a practical basis for requiring accounts. The later insertion of rule 6F extended a similar financial limit to the covered professions and removed any residual discrimination. The constitutional challenge therefore failed. en-us Fri, 12 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:23:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22723 Section 44AA of the Income-tax Act was upheld against an Article 14 challenge because the distinction between enumerated professions and other occupations was treated as a reasonable classification. Advocates, chartered accountants, doctors and engineers were regarded as a separate class due to statutory regulation and heavier record-keeping obligations, while occupations such as street vendors and hawkers were not similarly situated. The monetary threshold for non-enumerated professions was accepted as a practical basis for requiring accounts. The later insertion of rule 6F extended a similar financial limit to the covered professions and removed any residual discrimination. The constitutional challenge therefore failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22723