Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. ... on 22 December, 1994

Bayer Corporation vs Union Of India & Ors. on 22 April, 2019

―18. We may mention in fairness to Counsel that the following, among other decisions, were cited at the Bar bearing on the uses of provisos in statutes: CIT v. Indo-Mercantile Bank Ltd., AIR 1959 SC 713]; Ram Narain Sons Ltd. v. Asstt. (1955) 2 SCR 483, 493:]; Thompson v. Dibdin [(1912) AC 533, 541; Rex v. Dibdin [1910 Pro Div 57, 119, 125] and Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 Supp (2) SCR 875,]. The law is trite. A proviso must be limited to the subject-matter of the enacting clause. It is a settled Rule of construction that a proviso must prima facie be read and considered in relation to the principal matter to which it is a proviso. It is not a separate or independent enactment. "Words are dependent on the principal enacting words to which they are tacked as a proviso. They cannot be read as divorced from their context"
Delhi High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sterling Tools Ltd. vs Dy. Cit on 23 May, 2003

15. In coming to the direct cases pertaining to the facts emerging in ground Nos. 1 and 2, the learned counsel placed reliance on CIT v. Vinod Danchand Ghodawat (2001) 247 ITR 448 (Bom); Reeta Jaiswal v. Asstt. CIT (2001) 116 Taxman (Jab)(Mag); Kapoor Sons Steels (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2001) 119 Taxman 113 (Chd)(Mag); Essem Intra-Port Services (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (supra) and Aggarwal Motors v. Asstt. CIT (1999) 68 ITD 407 (Jab). The submissions were that subsequent reference to the DVO, who estimated a higher value and the difference being added as undisclosed income was not valid especially when the assessed had disclosed the investment/cost of construction in a regular assessment.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1