https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49483 Section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was upheld as a valid anti-evasion measure. The Court treated the power to levy income-tax as including power to enact provisions preventing evasion, and held that the rule targeting partnerships involving a husband and wife or a parent and minor children fell within legislative competence. It also found a rational classification based on an intelligible differentia connected to the object of preventing tax avoidance, so Article 14 was not violated. Applying the test of reasonableness, the Court held the restriction on Article 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) rights to be justified by the public interest in curbing tax evasion. en-us Fri, 04 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49483 Section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was upheld as a valid anti-evasion measure. The Court treated the power to levy income-tax as including power to enact provisions preventing evasion, and held that the rule targeting partnerships involving a husband and wife or a parent and minor children fell within legislative competence. It also found a rational classification based on an intelligible differentia connected to the object of preventing tax avoidance, so Article 14 was not violated. Applying the test of reasonableness, the Court held the restriction on Article 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) rights to be justified by the public interest in curbing tax evasion. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49483