| Case ID |
454d38e5-513a-4520-8090-c2c5a3aa97de |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
WRIT No. 319(T) OF 1982 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 09, 1982 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the provisions of sections 182 and 67 of the Income-tax Act were valid and did not violate the Constitution. It ruled that double taxation on both the registered firm and its partners was permissible under the law. The argument that such provisions were discriminatory was rejected, emphasizing that the law differentiates between registered firms and other entities, which is acceptable under the Constitution. The petition was dismissed, affirming the revenue's assessment. |
| Summary |
In the case of Mukand Lal Malik v. Union of India, the Allahabad High Court addressed the legality of tax assessments under sections 182 and 67 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, a legal practitioner, argued against double taxation on the income of a registered firm and its partners, claiming it violated constitutional rights. The court affirmed the provisions' validity, stating that they allowed for the separate assessment of registered firms and their partners without discrimination. This decision reinforces the differentiation in tax liability between registered and unregistered entities, emphasizing legislative intent. The ruling contributes to the ongoing discourse on tax law and its implications for partnership structures, ensuring clarity on tax obligations for legal practitioners and firms. This case serves as a precedent for future tax-related disputes involving partnership firms and their partners. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
K.N. Seth,
R.B. Lal
|
| Lawyers |
R.K. Gulati,
P.K. Jain,
M. Katju
|
| Petitioners |
Mukand Lal Malik
|
| Respondents |
Union of India
|
| Citations |
1984 SLD 619,
(1984) 148 ITR 461
|
| Other Citations |
Jain Brothers v. Union of India [1970] 77 ITR 107 (SC),
C.A. Abraham v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 425 (SC),
K.V. Adinarayana Setty v. ITO [1964] 52 ITR 987 (Mys.),
CIT v. Bhogilal Laherchand [1954] 25 ITR 50 (SC),
CIT v. Murlidhar Jhawar & Purna Ginning & Pressing Factory [1966] 60 ITR 95 (SC),
Addl. CIT v. Smt. Triveni Devi [1974] 97 ITR 390 (All.),
IRC v. Frank Bernar Sanderson [1921] 8 TC 38 (KB),
Joti Prasad Agarwal v. ITO [1959] 37 ITR 107 (All.),
Patiala State Bank, In re [1941] 9 ITR 95 (Bom.),
Stevens v. Durban-Roodepoort Gold Mining Co. Ltd. [1909] 5 TC 402 (KB)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
182,
67
|