Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.87 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
Section 105 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Tarulata Shyam And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 February, 1971
In the case of Smt. Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC) their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that in interpreting a provision the Court must look merely at what is clearly said. The section refers to the rent received or receivable. It does not permit adoption of any notional value on the basis of any benefit that may accrue to the assessee in future. If assessment of the income accrued in future is allowed to be assessed under s. 23(1)(b) it will result to double taxation. On the one hand the estimated value will be assessed under s. 23(1)(b) and on the other hand the income accrued by utilisation of the deposit will also be separately assessed in the year of accrual. The intention of the legislature is not to tax the receipt twice - one at the time of receipt of the deposit and one at the time of actual accrual.
K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981
In the case of K. P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that statutes must be so construed, if possible so that absurdity and mischief may be avoided. It is also well-settled principle of law that the provisions of the Act must be construed in a harmonious manner.