The Revenue Bar Association (RBA) in Chennai has filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Finance Act, 2026 through which several new provisions had been inserted into the Income Tax (I-T) Act of 1961 with retrospective effect dating back as early as June 1, 2007.

It has urged the court to declare as unconstitutional Sections 4,8,9,12,13,32 and 33 of the Finance Act, 2026 on grounds of being violative of the constitutional provisions and also the doctrines of separation of powers as well as that of the basic structure propounded by the Supreme Court.

The association has claimed the provisions were contrary to many judicial pronouncements. Its plea has been listed for admission before the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan on Monday (June 15, 2026).

Section 4 of the 2026 Act had inserted sub-section 3AA to Section 92CA of the I-T Act and prescribed the method of calculating the period of limitation for the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arm’s length price in relation to international or specified domestic transactions. It stated that the new sub section would be deemed to have come into effect from June 1, 2007.

Similarly, Section 8 of the 2026 Act had inserted sub sections 4A, 4B, 13A and 13B to Section 144C of the I-T Act and prescribed the time limit within which an Assessing Officer was expected to pass the assessment order. It also made it clear the new sub sections would be deemed to have come into effect from 2009.

Further, Section 9 of the Finance Act had inserted Section 147A to the I-T Act with effect from April 1, 2021. Sections 12 and 13 of the 2006 Act had inserted Sections 153(10) and 153B (1A) to the I-T Act also with retrospective effect and Sections 32 and 33 of the Finance Act had inserted Sections 292BA and 292BC to the I-T Act with effect from October 1, 2019 and April 1, 2021 respectively.

The newly introduced Section 292BA read that “notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, order or decree of any court, for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified for the purposes of section 292B that no assessment under any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to have been invalid on the ground of any mistake, defect or omission in respect of quoting of a computer generated Document Identification Number, if the assessment order is referenced by such number in any manner.”

The other newly introduced Section 292BC stated that “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any judgment, order or decree of any court, for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that any approval given by an income-tax authority in relation to any assessment, reassessment or recomputation proceedings under this Act shall be deemed to be administrative and supervisory in nature and shall not be invalid or shall not be deemed to be invalid by reason of any insufficiency of the reasons recorded or by reason of any defect in the form or manner of its authentication or communication including whether digital signature have been appended to such approval or not, where such approval is granted electronically.”

The petitioner association contended these provisions were violative of Articles 14 (right to equal protection of laws), 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business), 245 (power of the Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of the country and that of the Legislative Assembly of a State to make laws for the whole or any part of the State) and 246 (list of the subject matters on which the Parliament and the State legislatures could pass laws) of the Constitution.

The Association also claimed some of the provisions challenged by it were violative of Entry 82 of List I (Union list) of Schedule VII to the Constitution which prohibits the Parliament from passing laws related to levy of taxes on agricultural income.