Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.26 seconds)
Federal Bank Officers Association vs Union Of India on 12 March, 2004 cites

Avinder Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab & Anr. Etc on 19 September, 1978

11. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners were elaborately considered by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Bhel Employees Associations case (supra) wherein reference is also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 321 in which it laid down the tests for a valid delegation of legislative power as (i) the Legislature cannot efface itself, (ii) it cannot delegate the plenary or the essential legislative function; (iii) even if there be delegation, Parliamentary control over delegated legislation should be a living continuity as a constitutional necessity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 202 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Agricultural Market Committee vs Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd on 7 May, 1997

12. It admits of no doubt that essential feature cannot be delineated in detail but at the same time delegation is a constituent element of legislative power under article 245 of the Constitution of India. (See Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. AIR 1997 SC 2502. Therefore, the only question is whether the delegation is excessive or whether the Legislature has abdicated its essential functions ? In this connection, it has to be examined the scope of section 17(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Act as to whether it is liable to be struck down on the ground of excessive delegation ? Sub-clause (t) to (v) of clause (2) of section 17 specifies what are to be treated as perquisites. The definition itself is an inclusive definition. The value of rent free accommodation provided to the assessee by his employer, value of concession in the matter of rent respecting any accommodation, value of a benefit or amenity granted or provided free of cost are specifically included in the definition clause itself. As per sub-clause (vi) of section 17(2) the value of any other 'fringe benefit or amenity to be prescribed is included in the definition perquisite. Therefore, any value of fringe benefit of amenity would also come under the purview of the term perquisite. Going by Websters Encyclopaedic Unabridged Dictionary, the term fringe benefit means a benefit as free life of health insurance, received by an employee in addition to his regular pay and amenity means the quality of being pleasing or agreeable in situation, prospect, disposition, etc. The meaning of the expression in other dictionary also would show that what it actually means is an advantage obtained by an employee. It cannot, therefore, be said that the word fringe benefit or amenity are expressions which have not gained specific understanding both in daily and commercial use. Further, while considering a challenge that the provisions is bad because of its excessive dilation, it has to be found whether Legislature had left the essential functions to be legislated by delegated authority or merely left the execution of it. As held by the Apex Court in Art. 143, Constitution of India and Delhi Laws Act, (1912), In re AIR 1951 SC 332 it is open to the Legislature to formulate the policy as broadly and with as little or as much details as it thinks proper and it may delegate the rest of the legislative work to a subordinate authority to work out the details within the framework of that policy. In the light of section 17(2) of the Act and the inclusive definition contained thereon of the term perquisite and also the fact that the expression has been understood as an advantage or a benefit conferred to an employee and considering the fact that it is an inclusive definition and following the various decisions of the Supreme Court as referred to above, it cannot be said that section 17(2)(vi) of the Act should be struck down on the ground that it confers unguided or uncontrolled power on the rule making authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 103 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair vs The State Of Kerala And Another(With ... on 9 December, 1960

16. The Supreme Court, in case of Kunnathat Thathunnai Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala AIR 1961 SC 552 observed that if the taxation, generally speaking, imposes a similar burden on every one with reference to that particular kind and extent of property, on the same basis of taxation, the law shall not be open to attack on the ground of inequality, even though the result of the taxation may be that the local burden on different persons may be unequal. Therefore, if the Legislature has classified persons or properties into different categories, which are subjected to different rates of taxation with reference to income or property, such a classification would not be open to the attack of inequality on the ground that the total burden resulting from such a classification is unequal. No doubt, it is true that taxation laws must also pass the test of article 14. In deciding whether taxation law is discriminatory or not it cannot be forgotten that the State has a wide discretion in the matter of selecting the persons or objects to be taxed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 425 - B P Sinha - Full Document

National Federation Of Insurance Field ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 November, 2003

On the other hand, the definite stand taken by the Board is that this matter will be looked into by them as noticed in the decision of the Uttaranchal High Court in National Federation of Insurance Field Workers of Indias case (supra). In such circumstances, I direct that unless and until suitable circulars are issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes the provisions shall be read down and understood with a rider that the rate provided in the rule will be applicable unless the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the assessing officer that rate of interest or any part thereof charged by the employer does not amount to any concession or benefit having due regard to the rate of interest charged for such type of loan by public financial institutions.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 5 - S H Kapadia - Full Document
1   2 3 Next