Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
Cairn Exploration (No. 7) Ltd.,, Surat vs The Adit., (Intl.Taxn.), Ahmedabad on 1 August, 2018
cites
M/S Rapti Commission Agency vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 2 August, 2006
phrase in a statute to give it a reasonable meaning. The .object
of reading down is to keep the operation of the statute within the
purpose of the Act and constitutionally valid. Thus, in order to
save a statute or a part thereof from being struck down it can be
suitably read down. However, reading down is not permissible in
such a manner as would fly in the face of the express terms of the
statutory provisions. It is a very well settled legal position, that if
the Court while construing a provision, finds that the same is
ambiguous, the Court instead of striking it down, may read it
down so as to save the constitutional validity. Moreover, the rule
of reading down applies only where two views are possible as to
the meaning of the statutory language. (See Delhi Transport
Corporation v, D.T.C. azdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600,
C.B. Gautam v. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 78, and Rapti
Commission Agency v. State of U.P., (2006) 6 SCC 522).
Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990
phrase in a statute to give it a reasonable meaning. The .object
of reading down is to keep the operation of the statute within the
purpose of the Act and constitutionally valid. Thus, in order to
save a statute or a part thereof from being struck down it can be
suitably read down. However, reading down is not permissible in
such a manner as would fly in the face of the express terms of the
statutory provisions. It is a very well settled legal position, that if
the Court while construing a provision, finds that the same is
ambiguous, the Court instead of striking it down, may read it
down so as to save the constitutional validity. Moreover, the rule
of reading down applies only where two views are possible as to
the meaning of the statutory language. (See Delhi Transport
Corporation v, D.T.C. azdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600,
C.B. Gautam v. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 78, and Rapti
Commission Agency v. State of U.P., (2006) 6 SCC 522).
Section 250 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 144C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1