Facts
The South Indian Bank Employees Association filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a declaration that Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and sub-paragraph (c) of Paragraph B of the bank’s circular dated 26 October 2009 were unconstitutional and ultra vires the Income-tax Act, 1961
Source reference: p. 2The challenge to Section 17(2)(viii) of the Act and Rule 3(7)(i) had previously been rejected by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in All India Union Bank Officers v. Union of India (20 April 2016)
Source reference: pp. 2–3The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed appeals and upheld the relevant provisions
Source reference: pp. 3–5Issues
1. Whether Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, was unconstitutional or ultra vires the Income-tax Act, 1961
Source reference: pp. 2, 62. Whether sub-paragraph (c) of Paragraph B of the bank’s circular dated 26 October 2009 was liable to be declared unconstitutional or invalid in light of the prior decisions upholding Rule 3(7)(i)
Source reference: pp. 2, 6Law Applied
Section 17(2)(viii) of the Income-tax Act authorises the treatment of prescribed benefits or perquisites as taxable, and Rule 3(7)(i) prescribes the method for valuing the benefit from interest-free or concessional loans by reference to SBI’s rate of interest
Source reference: pp. 3–5In All India Union Bank Officers v. Union of India (Madras High Court, 20 April 2016), the Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 17(2)(viii) and Rule 3(7)(i)
Source reference: p. 3In All India Bank Officers’ Confederation v. Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, 2024 INSC 389, (2024) 464 ITR 284, the Supreme Court upheld the rule-making power and held that using SBI’s rate as a uniform benchmark was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14
Source reference: pp. 3–5Reasoning
The Court considered the challenge to Rule 3(7)(i) to be squarely governed by the earlier Madras High Court decision and the Supreme Court’s subsequent affirmance of that decision
Source reference: p. 6Since those decisions had upheld the validity of the statutory provision and the rule, the Court found no basis to grant the declaration sought in the present petition
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, rejecting the challenge as covered by the prior decisions upholding Section 17(2)(viii) of the Act and Rule 3(7)(i) of the Rules
It made no order as to costs and closed the interim application
Source reference: p. 6Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.
Income Tax Act, 19611
Circular dated 26.10.20091
Original Court PDF
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANKvsUNION OF INDIA,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
