Rule 3(1)

Rule 3(1) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section Rule 3(1), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• All India Central Bank Officers Federation v Union of India High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  My client is a bank officer taxed on a deemed concession in rent for the bank's quarters even though the market rent is lower than the percentage of salary applied. Is the deeming provision open to challenge?
  Not on the grounds run so far. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions by bank officers' associations challenging Explanations 1 to 4 below s.17(2) inserted by the Finance Act 2007 with limited retrospective effect. It held the legal fiction is not an impermissible legislative override of Arun Kumar v Union of India, that the retrospectivity is valid, and that classifying by city population and measuring the concession as a percentage of salary does not offend Article 14.

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.