Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.26 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
M/S Sri Ram Mahadeo Prasad vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 1 September, 1960
This principle has been reiterated by this Court in several
pronouncements. But the limitations of its application in
the present cases arise out of the circumstance that the
decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sri Ram Mahadeo
Prasad v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 24 ITR 176 did not
proceed or rest on any special or technical connotation of
the word "interest" nor any special legal sense which that
word could be said to have acquired by the earlier judicial
ascertainment of its amplitude. The decision proceeded on a
construction of the relevant provision i.e. Section 10(4)(b)
of the 1922 Act and on what the High Court considered as
affording to the assessee a fair-treatment. Nothing particu-
lar stemmed from the interpretation of the expression
"interest". The appeal to this principle of construction is,
in our opinion, somewhat out of place in this case. The
rules of interpretation are not rules of law; they are mere
aids to construction and constitute some broad pointers. The
interpretative criteria apposite in a given situation may,
by themselves, be mutually irreconcilable. It is the task of
the Court to decide which one, in the light of all relevant
circumstances, ought to prevail. The rules of interpretation
are useful servants but quite often tend to become difficult
masters. It is appropriate to recall the words of Lord
Reid's in Maunsell v. olins, [1975] 1 All ER 16:
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of Travancore vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kerala on 8 January, 1986
(Emphasis Supplied) (p. 139)
The expression 'executive in character' is, presumably,
used to distinguish them from judicial pronouncements. The
circulars referred to in that case were also of the Central
Board of Direct Taxes and were, presumably also, statutory
in character.
The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs O.M.S.S. Sankaralinga Nadar & Co. on 7 December, 1982
11. The decision of the Madras High Court in Sankaralin-
ga Nadar's case speaks of income-tax and equity being
strangers. To say that a Court could not resort to the so-
called "equitable construction" of a taxing statute is not
to say that where a strict literal construction leads to a
result not intended to subserve the object of the legisla-
tion, another construction, permissible in the context,
should not be adopted.
Addanki Narayanappa & Anr vs Bhaskara Krishtappa And 13 Ors on 21 January, 1966
In
Narayanappa v. Krishtappa, [1966] 3 SCR 400, this Court
referred to the nature of the interest of a partner in the
firm and observed:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs R.M. Chidambaram Pillai Etc on 17 November, 1976
" ..... In point of law, a partner may be the debtor or
the creditor of his co-partners, but he cannot be either
debtor or creditor of the firm of which he is himself a
member, nor can he be employed by his firm, for a man cannot
be his own employer." (p. 30)
The position as stated above was approved by this Court in
Chidabaram's case.
Champaran Cane Concern vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 9 April, 1964
"..... A partnership firm is not a legal entity. This Court
in Champaran Cane Concern v. State of Bihar and Anr., point-
ed out that in a partnership each partner acts as an agent
of the other. The position of a partner qua the firm is thus
not that of a master and a servant or employee which concept
involves an element of subordination but that of equality.
The partnership business belongs to the partners and each
one of them is an owner thereof ...... "