Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.28 seconds)Article 35 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 9 in Rajasthan Stamp Act 1998 [Entire Act]
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Section 91 in Rajasthan Stamp Act 1998 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Rajasthan Stamp Act 1998
Commnr. Of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs M/S. Dilip Kumar And Company on 30 July, 2018
In any case, even if it is to be taken as a case of ambiguity,
notification dated 05.03.2003 being in the nature of concession
clause, the same principle of interpretation as is applicable in the
case of exemption clause, as laid down by the Constitution Bench
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of
Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company &
Others (supra) has to be applied that in such a case, the benefit
of doubt must be resolved in favour of the revenue and not in
favour of the assessee. Thus, viewed from any angle, the
respondent-Indus Tower Limited was not entitled to benefit of
notification dated 05.03.2003 and claim of reduced rate of stamp
duty in respect of lease deeds executed in its favour, is not tenable
in law.