New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned to May 17 the plea by Serum Institute of India (SII) challenging the Bombay High Court order dismissing its plea against the 2016 amendments to the Income Tax Act. The petition was rejected. Had given.
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra adjourned the matter after senior lawyer Arvind P Datar, appearing for the company, sought time for arguments.
The company has moved the top court challenging the Bombay High Court order dated December 4, 2023, which struck down the 2016 amendment by adding sub-section (xviii) to section 2(24) under the Finance Act, 2011 Was. His petition was rejected. With definition of 'income'.
The petition challenges the inclusion of subsidies, grants, rebates, concessions or reimbursements or incentives in cash or in kind as 'income' by the Center or states.
The High Court had held that the mere fact that imposition of tax by virtue of a sub-section imposes a greater burden on the petitioner does not invalidate the legal provision.
The High Court had said, “The Constitution protects the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) but this protection does not extend to the right to profit.”
The High Court had said that it is the duty of the legislature to ensure that the taxation policy reflects a balance between encouraging economic activity and ensuring equitable distribution of fiscal resources.
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra adjourned the matter after senior lawyer Arvind P Datar, appearing for the company, sought time for arguments.
The company has moved the top court challenging the Bombay High Court order dated December 4, 2023, which struck down the 2016 amendment by adding sub-section (xviii) to section 2(24) under the Finance Act, 2011 Was. His petition was rejected. With definition of 'income'.
The petition challenges the inclusion of subsidies, grants, rebates, concessions or reimbursements or incentives in cash or in kind as 'income' by the Center or states.
The High Court had held that the mere fact that imposition of tax by virtue of a sub-section imposes a greater burden on the petitioner does not invalidate the legal provision.
The High Court had said, “The Constitution protects the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) but this protection does not extend to the right to profit.”
The High Court had said that it is the duty of the legislature to ensure that the taxation policy reflects a balance between encouraging economic activity and ensuring equitable distribution of fiscal resources.
