Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.35 seconds)
Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hughes Services (Far East) (P.) Ltd. on 24 February, 2003
cites
Finance Act, 1999
Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 September, 1989
In this regard the context, background and history of the legislation may be looked into - See Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1989 SC 2227; 4 SCC 378; p. 393, paragraph 33 - wherein the Supreme Court has analysed the entire law on the point.
Section 5 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The State Of Bombay And Another vs The United Motors (India) Ltd. And ... on 30 March, 1953
State of Bombay v. United Motors (supra) laid down that the interpretation must obviously depend upon the words used therein, but this must be borne in mind that when the provision is capable of two interpretations, that should be adopted which fits the description. An explanation is different in nature from a proviso for a proviso excepts, excludes or restricts while an explanation explains or clarifies. Such explanation or clarification may be in respects of matters whose meaning is implicit and not explicit in the main Section itself.
Engineers Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs D.D. Sharma on 12 November, 1999
9. Now let us examine the contention of the learned DR whether the amendment by Finance Act, 1999 was clarificatory/declaratory and, therefore, retrospective in operation. Such contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the said amendment, in our opinion, cannot be considered either as declaratory or clarificatory since it has enlarged the scope of the main Section by including new item of income. Normally, the Explanation is inserted either to explain the meaning of the words in the main Section or to clarify the confusion regarding the meaning of such words. In such cases, no doubt, the Explanation can be said to be declaratory or clarificatory having retrospective effect. In principle, to that extent, we are in agreement with the learned DR. But where the amendment seeks to expand the scope of the main Section and affects the rights and obligation of the parties, then such amendment cannot be given retrospective effect unless specifically so provided. Reference can be made to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Engineers Impex (P.) Ltd. v. D.D. Sharma [2000] 244 ITR 247 wherein it has been held as under:
Bihta Co-Operative Development Cane ... vs The Bank Of Bihar & Ors on 12 October, 1966
32. An Explanation, as was found in Bihta Marketing Union v. Bank of Bihar AIR 1967 SC 389 : (1967) SCR 848, may only explain and may not expand or add to the scope of the original Section.
The Collector Of Customs, Calcutta And ... vs G. Dass And Co. And Ors. on 9 February, 1966
The construction of an Explanation, as was held in Collector of Customs v. G. Dass & Co. AIR 1966 SC 1577, must depend upon its terms and no theory of its purpose can be entertained unless it is to be inferred from the language used.
Burmah Shell Oil Storage And ... vs Commercial Tax Officer And Others on 27 September, 1960
It was said in Burmah Shell Oil Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1961 SC 315 : (1961) 1 902, that the Explanation was meant to explain the Article and must be interpreted according to its own tenor and it was an error to explain the Explanation with the aid of the Article to which it was annexed.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay Etc vs Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. Etc on 27 May, 1997
In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 : 92 Taxman 541. Alternatively, it was contended by him that even the old provisions, prior to above amendment, included the off-period salary within its ambit. Reliance was placed on certain decisions of the Tribunal.