Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)Section 14 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 46 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Punjab Sikh Regular Motor ... vs The Regional Transport ... on 15 October, 1965
Similarly, when a statutory provision is in the form 'except as may be otherwise prescribed by rules' or when it is 'subject to the rules' the rules are made to prevail over the statutory provision
See Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Services v. Regional Transport Authority AIR 1966 SC 1318 and Joginder Singh v. Dy. Custodian General of Evacuee Property AIR 1967 SC 145 page 148.
Section 104 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981
If the Tribunal held Rule 1D as mandatory, it would be violating the principles of natural justice relating to harmonious construction and for carrying out the purposes of the Act, some violence to the language should be done as held by the Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597-98. The learned Counsel for the assessee also pointed out that what the Act provided was the levy of wealth-tax on real assets and the value of the shares under Rule 1D will only be artificial and not real which is not permissible under the Jaw.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Ganesh Builders on 5 March, 1977
For this proposition, he relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Ganesh Builders [1979] 116 ITR 911 at p. 919. On the basis of the above submissions, he urged that Rule 1D was only directory.
1