Constitution Art. 14

Constitution Art. 14 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section Constitution Art. 14, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• DCIT v Pepsi Foods Ltd Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  Your Tribunal stay lapsed at 365 days through no fault of yours. Is that constitutional?
  No. The third proviso to s.254(2A), which vacated a stay after 365 days even where the delay was not attributable to the assessee, violates Article 14. A stay now vacates only where the delay is attributable to you.
• Union of India v Exide Industries Ltd Supreme CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  Can I deduct my provision for leave encashment in the year I make it, or only when I pay?
  Only when paid. Section 43B(f) is constitutionally valid: it does not touch your choice of accounting method or take away the deduction, it adds a condition of actual payment for that head and defers the benefit to the year of payment.
• Binoy Viswam v Union of India Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  Is the Aadhaar-PAN requirement in s.139AA valid, and can my existing PAN be cancelled under it?
  Valid, with one limited relief. Section 139AA was upheld against Article 14, the classification being rationally connected to eliminating duplicate and fake PANs, and against Article 19(1)(g) as a reasonable restriction saved by Article 19(6); the Article 21 privacy challenge was expressly left to the Constitution Bench. The only relief was that the consequence in s.139AA(2) of treating a PAN as invalid could not operate retrospectively so as to unsettle completed transactions of existing PAN holders who had not enrolled.
• T.D. Venkata Rao v Union of India Supreme CourtHelps department
  I am a registered income-tax practitioner under s.288(2). Can I sign a tax audit report?
  No. Being an authorised representative under s.288(2) carries no right to conduct the compulsory audit under s.44AB. Confining that work to chartered accountants rests on their training and special aptitude in audits, which is an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of the section, so it survives Article 14, and it is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) because the practitioner's own profession is left untouched.
• Federation of All India Vyapar Mandal v Union of India Supreme CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  I heard the 45-day MSME payment rule was challenged in the Supreme Court. Was it struck down?
  Nothing has been struck down. Section 43B(h) is in force. Tax-press reports in 2024 said a traders' federation had moved the Supreme Court against the clause and that the Court did not take up the challenge, but no order of any court in that matter has been located, and the reports do not agree with each other on what was actually done. Treat the position as: no court has struck down or read down s.43B(h), and there is no order you can cite.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.