Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 693 - TELANGANA HIGH COURTPerquisites - where the employer has advanced any loan to the employee for the purpose of building a house or purchasing a site or a house and a site or for purchasing a motor car, and either no interest is charged by the employer - Validity of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 (Act No. 14 of 2001) w.e.f., 01.04.2002) - the petitioner-association also seeks to challenge the validity of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as substituted by the Income Tax (22nd Amendment) Rules 2001 by notification dated 25.09.2001 on the ground that the same is hit by the vice of excessive delegation - HELD THAT:- Section 17(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f., 01.04.2002 provision has been substituted by the Finance Act, 2005 (18 of 2005 w.e.f., 01.04.2006) and thereafter, the same has been substituted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 (33 of 2009). Therefore, the challenge to the aforesaid provision has been rendered academic by efflux of time. The petitioner has assailed the validity of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as substituted by the Income Tax (22nd Amendment) Rules, 2001. The validity of the aforesaid provision has been examined by various High Courts. In P.N. TIWARI V. UNION OF INDIA (2003) [2003 (9) TMI 52 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] upheld the validity of Rule 3. Similarly, in BHEL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA [2003 (2) TMI 48 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] as upheld the validity of Rule 3. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of Madras High Court in BHEL EXECUTIVES’ OFFICERS ASSOCIATION [2003 (4) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] We respectfully agree with the view taken by various Division Benches of Allahabad, Karnataka and Madras High Courts.
|