Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.24 seconds)
Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ghaziabad & ... on 25 July, 2011
cites
Section 153 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 143 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 2018
Md.Shahabuddin vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 25 March, 2010
19. The settled law, therefore, is that a Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. The language employed in a statute is a determinative factor of the legislative intent. If the language of the enactment is clear and unambiguous, it would not be proper for the Courts to add any words thereto and evolve some legislative intent, not found in the statute. The other aspect, which is well established principle of statutory interpretation is that the legislature is specially precise and careful in its choice of language. Thus, if a statutory provision is enacted by the legislature, which prescribes a condition at one place but not at some other place in the same provision, the only reasonable interpretation which can be resorted to by the courts is that such was the intention of the legislature and that the provision was concisely enacted in that manner. In such cases, it will be wrong to presume that such omission was inadvertent or that by incorporating the condition at one place in the provision the legislature also intended the condition to be applied at some other place in that provision. [(Mohd. Shahabuddin vs. State of Bihar and others (supra)].
M/S Oxford University Press vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 January, 2001
23. For the purpose of interpretation of statutory provisions, we may also refer to the judgment in OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (2001) 3 SCC, 359. In para 34, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
Keshavji Ravji & Co. Etc. Etc vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 February, 1990
In Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT this Court held that in a taxation statute where literal interpretation leads to a result not intended to subserve the object of the legislation another construction in consonance with the object should be adopted. Therein referring to the words of Thomas M. Cooley in Law of Taxation, Vol. 2, this Court observed: (SCC at p. 243, para 12).
N.B. Sanjana, Assistant Collector Of ... vs Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Mills ... on 22 January, 1971
24. Dealing with the interpretation of taxing statutes, in N.B. Sanjana, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and others vs. The Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd., reported in 1971 (1) SCC 337, the Supreme Court observed as under:-