| Case ID |
2e16e697-a5e6-4d05-a5e4-17389ce39c81 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
CIVIL RULE No. 434 OF 1968 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 23, 1973 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that if an assessee, being a member of a Scheduled Tribe, has any income which accrues or arises in an area specified under section 10(26) of the Income-tax Act, that income will not be chargeable to tax. However, if any income accrues or arises outside the area, the assessee cannot take advantage of this provision. The court reaffirmed that the classification of income based on the geographical location is valid and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The challenge to the validity of section 10(26) was dismissed, confirming that the law aims to provide relief to members of Scheduled Tribes residing in specified areas, thereby promoting their socio-economic advancement. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of section 10(26) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides tax exemptions for members of Scheduled Tribes based on the geographical area where their income is earned. Dr. Curzon G. Momin, a member of the Garo community and a Scheduled Tribe, contested the applicability of this provision, claiming discrimination as he was taxed for income earned in Gauhati, while income earned in Garo Hills would be exempt. The Gauhati High Court examined the provisions of the Income-tax Act and upheld the classification, stating that the law serves a valid purpose of supporting socio-economic development within specified areas. The decision reinforced the importance of territorial nexus in tax legislation and concluded that the provisions do not violate constitutional rights. This case highlights key issues in tax law regarding exemptions and classifications based on geographical and community considerations. |
| Court |
Gauhati High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
P.K. Goswami, C.J.,
B.N. Sarma, J.
|
| Lawyers |
B.C. Barua,
K.P. Sen,
J. Sangma,
J.P. Bhattacharjee,
S.N. Medhi
|
| Petitioners |
Dr. Curzon G. Momin
|
| Respondents |
I.S. Phukan, 2nd Additional Income Tax Officer
|
| Citations |
1973 SLD 698,
(1973) 92 ITR 425
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. B. Chunilal Mehta [1938] 6 ITR 521 (PC),
S.K. Dutta v. Lawrence Singh Ingty [1968] 68 ITR 272 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
10(26)
|