classic statement of Rowlatt, J., in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC, (1921) 1 KB 64, 71 still holds the field. It reads
implied and there is no room for any intendment. [See: Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1921] 1 K.B. 64 and Ajmera Housing
quoted observations of Rowlattt J. in the case of Cape Brandy
Syndicate v. IRC [1921] 1 KB 64 ought also to be noticed at this
will be well to recall the words of Rowlatt J. in
Cape Brandy Syndicate v, Inland Revenue Commissioners
(1921) 1 KB 64 (KB) at page
Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee ... vs Mumbai on 5 February, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE
provision is clear and unambiguous as Rowlatt J. in Cape
Brandy Syndicate v. 1RC [1921] 1 KB 64 in CIT v. Ajax Products
strict interpretation of
the statute as is clear from the wordings: Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC
(1921) 1 KB 64, AV Fernandez V. State
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 23 December, 2015
court observed views of rowlatt J in case of 'Cape Brandy Syndicate' that
'in a taxing act one has to look merely
quoted observations of Rowlattt J. in the case of Cape
Brandy Syndicate v. IRC [1921] 1 KB 64 ought also to be noticed at this