REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

ABHAY KUMAR AND CO., Appellant

V/S

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V. NARASIMHA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS V. VEERABADRAPPA [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA DALMIA SHRIYANS PRASAD JAIN JAI DAYAL DALMIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HAFIZ DIN MOHAMMAD HAJI ABDULLA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BHOPAL SUGAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED M P VS. D P DUBE SALES TAX OFFICER BHOPAL REGION BHOPAL [REFERRED TO]
R ABDUL QUADER AND CO VS. SALES TAX OFFICER 2ND CIRCLE HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
NEW MANEK CHOWK SPG AND WVG MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABADIN ALL THE PETITIONS [REFERRED TO]
S K DUTTA INCOME TAX OFFICER SALARYCURN S I B CIRCLE ASSAM VS. LAWRENCE SINGH INGTY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. HAJI K HAJI K KUTTY NAHA [REFERRED TO]
MURTHY MATCH WORKS VS. ASSTT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL CALCUTTA VS. TOLLYGUNGE CLUB LTD [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA LIMITED VS. NERGESH MEERZA [REFERRED TO]
HOECHST PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED JUMNA FLOUR AND OIL MILLS PHARMA ASSOCIATES VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
T VENKATA REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
VALLABHDAS MANJIBHAI DHOLAKIA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
MUDIAM OIL CO VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
R B BASU VS. P K MUKHERJI [REFERRED TO]
KANDULA RADHAKRISHNA RAO VS. PROVINCE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
NATARAJ T S VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN TRADING COMPANY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SATISH MAJUMDAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
C A AKHTAR AND COMPANY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
NEW NAGPUR COPRA INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all this batch of writ petitions, a common question of law and fact has been raised. Therefore, they are disposed of by a single order.

(2.) IN these writ petitions, principal submissions have been made, one regarding the validity of Section 44AB and Section 271B of the INcome-tax Act and second, regarding interpretation of Sections 44AB and 271B of the INcome-tax Act. Sections 44AB and 271B were introduced by the Finance Act of 1984, which read as under :

(3.) THUS, in view of the clear position of law as enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, there is no hesitation in saying that the present provision which has been incorporated is incidental and in order to check the evasion of tax. THUS, it cannot be said to exceed the legislative competence under entry 82 of List 1 of Schedule VII to the Constitution. Likewise, it cannot be said to be arbitrary so as to be violative of article 14 of the Constitution.

Click here to view full judgment.

ABHAY KUMAR AND COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address