Writ petition was filed seeking a direction that (a) \u201crelative\u201d as defined under section\u00a02(g)\u00a0of the 2007 Act be treated at par with \u201crelative\u201d as defined under section\u00a02(41)\u00a0and section\u00a056\u00a0of the 1961 Act for grant of exemption from tax on gifts received and challenging the provisos and Explanation in section\u00a056\u00a0of the 1961 Act granting exemption to relatives while excluding relatives as defined under section\u00a02(g)\u00a0of the 2007 Act. Dismissing the petition the Court held that\u00a0 the definition of relative under Income-tax\u00a0 Act\u00a0 in no manner promoted the maintenance and welfare of senior citizens. Consequently, the reliance placed by the assessee on sections 3 and 4 of the 2007 Act that it was a welfare legislation and had overriding effect over other Acts was untenable in law. The contention that the 1961 Act made two classes of senior citizens was contrary to the facts. This would not prejudice the right of the donee to file any proceeding in accordance with law. The Court also observed that the general approach of the courts is to ensure that they do not stray into usurping the legislative function. A specific instance of this approach is the rule that a casus omissus is not to be created or supplied, so that a statute may not be extended to meet a case for which provision has clearly and undoubtedly not been made. Relied on Babita Lila v. UOI (2016) 387 ITR 305 (SC)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 56 : Income from other sources-Relative-Definition of reactive under two different Acts-Writ petition dismissed-Interpretation of taxing statute-Legislative function-Causus Omisus-Not created by interpretation. [S. 2(41), Art, 226, Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, S. 2(g), 23] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30957","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-83j","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30957","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30957"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30957\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32454,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30957\/revisions\/32454"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30957"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30957"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30957"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}