| Case ID |
15cca7a9-7519-4485-97ca-8d31f19788ce |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Writ Petition No.7868 of 1983 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 09, 1991 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court upheld the constitutionality of subsections (3A) and (3B) of section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, affirming that these provisions do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The judgment confirmed that the ceiling on advertisement expenditure deductions does not discriminate against any group and is within the legislative competence of Parliament. The court emphasized that the income assessed for tax should not merely reflect expenditures and that the law provides a uniform treatment for all advertisements, which is not unconstitutional. The provision was deemed valid, and the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. |
| Summary |
In the case of Dollar Co. Private Ltd. vs. Union of India, the Madras High Court examined the constitutionality of specific provisions under the Income Tax Act, particularly subsections (3A) and (3B) of section 37, which impose restrictions on the deductibility of advertisement expenditures exceeding one lakh rupees. The court analyzed whether these provisions infringe upon the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the ceiling on deductions was arbitrary and unfairly affected businesses reliant on advertising. However, the court ruled that the legislation aimed to create a uniform standard for all businesses, thereby maintaining fairness in tax treatment. The judgment referenced previous cases to support its reasoning, concluding that the law does not interfere with the freedom of trade and business, and is justified in the interest of public welfare. This decision highlights the balance between legislative power and constitutional rights in the context of tax law, offering clarity on the treatment of business expenditures in India. |
| Court |
Madras High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
KANAKARAJ, J
|
| Lawyers |
Not available
|
| Petitioners |
DOLLAR CO. PRIVATE LTD
|
| Respondents |
others,
UNION OF INDIA
|
| Citations |
1995 SLD 802,
1995 PTD 228,
(1993) 204 ITR 103
|
| Other Citations |
Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. Union of India (1986) 160 ITR 50 (Kar.),
British Electrical and Pumps (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 620 (Cal.),
Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India v. Union of India (1989) 178 ITR 97 (SC),
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1985) 154 ITR 64 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
37(3)
|