Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.30 seconds)Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute Of Chemical Biology & ... on 16 April, 2002
The definition of 'goods' in Sales of Goods Act is also of wide
import which means every kind of movable property. Property has been
defined therein to mean the general property in goods and not merely a
special property. It is not much in dispute that 'goods' would comprehend
tangible and intangible properties, materials, commodities and articles and
also corporeal an incorporeal materials, articles and commodities. If a
distinction is sought to be made between tangible and intangible properties,
materials, commodities and articles and also corporeal and incorporeal
materials, the definition of goods will have to be rewritten of comprising
tangible goods only which is impermissible. This Court, therefore, will have
to confine itself to the question as to whether the concerned software would
come within the purview of "goods". In the Constitution, goods as such is
not defined. An expansive definition with the said expression has been
given which is indicated by the expression "includes". Such an expression is
also of wide amplitude. [See Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of
Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111, para 5 & 6].
Scientific Engineering House (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Andhra ... on 1 November, 1985
When the word 'includes' is used in an interpretation clause, it must
be construed as comprehending not only such things as they signify
according to their nature and import but also those things which the
interpretation clause declares that they shall include. [See Scientific
Engineering House Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra
Pradesh (1986) 1 SCC 11].
Sri Jagatram Ahuja vs The Commissioner Of Gift Tax on 17 October, 2000
Copyright Act and the Sales Tax Act are also not statutes in pari
materia and as such the definition contained in the former should not be
applied in the latter. [See Jagatram Ahuja Vs. Commr. of Gift-tax,
Hyderabad AIR 2000 SC 3195, p. 3201]
In absence of incorporation or reference, it is trite that it is not
permissible to interpret a word in accordance with its definition in other
statute and more so when the same is not dealing with any cognate subject.
State Of Kerala vs Mathal Verghese & Ors on 19 November, 1986
[See State of Kerala Vs. Mathai Verghese & Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 746, p. 753
and Feroze N. Dotivala Vs. P.M. Wadhwani & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 433, p.
442]
It may not be necessary for us to rely upon the decisions of this Court
in H. Anraj Vs. Government of T.N. [(1986) 1 SCC 414] the correctness
whereof has been doubted in Sunrise Associates Vs. NCT of Delhi [(2000)
10 SCC 420].
Feroze N. Dotivala vs P.M. Wadhwani And Ors on 3 December, 2002
[See State of Kerala Vs. Mathai Verghese & Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 746, p. 753
and Feroze N. Dotivala Vs. P.M. Wadhwani & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 433, p.
442]
It may not be necessary for us to rely upon the decisions of this Court
in H. Anraj Vs. Government of T.N. [(1986) 1 SCC 414] the correctness
whereof has been doubted in Sunrise Associates Vs. NCT of Delhi [(2000)
10 SCC 420].
H. Anraj Etc vs Government Of Tamilnadu Etc on 4 October, 1985
[See State of Kerala Vs. Mathai Verghese & Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 746, p. 753
and Feroze N. Dotivala Vs. P.M. Wadhwani & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 433, p.
442]
It may not be necessary for us to rely upon the decisions of this Court
in H. Anraj Vs. Government of T.N. [(1986) 1 SCC 414] the correctness
whereof has been doubted in Sunrise Associates Vs. NCT of Delhi [(2000)
10 SCC 420].
Haryana State Lotteries, Iqbal Chand ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 17 July, 1998
[See State of Kerala Vs. Mathai Verghese & Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 746, p. 753
and Feroze N. Dotivala Vs. P.M. Wadhwani & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 433, p.
442]
It may not be necessary for us to rely upon the decisions of this Court
in H. Anraj Vs. Government of T.N. [(1986) 1 SCC 414] the correctness
whereof has been doubted in Sunrise Associates Vs. NCT of Delhi [(2000)
10 SCC 420].
M/S Associated Cement Companies Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs on 25 January, 2001
Mr. Sorabjee submitted that this Court Associated Cement Companies
Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs [(2001) 4 SCC 593] has misapplied the
principles contained in St. Albans City and District Council Vs. International
Computers [1996 (4) All ER 481].
Inland Revenue Commissioners vs Pollock & Peel Ltd. (In Liquidation). on 24 May, 1957
Example 149.2 In a tax avoidance case concerning
capital transfer tax, the Court of Appeal were
called on to construe the Finance Act 1975 Sch 5
para 6(7) as originally enacted. Counsel for the
Inland Revenue put forward several alternative
arguments on construction, but the court preferred
the one based on the unglossed literal meaning. It
may be conjectured however that the other
arguments helped to convince the court that the
Inland Revenue's case was to be preferred."