Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.88 seconds)

Pushkar Narain Sarraf vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 January, 1990

In this context, attention was invited to the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Pushkar Narain Saraf (supra). This apart, it was submitted that the presumption under S. 132(4A) is a rebuttable presumption. No adverse inference was drawn about this paper in the proceedings under S. 132(5) and the amount has not been added in the summary order made under S. 132(5). No question was asked about this seized paper in the statement under S. 132(4) or by the Asstt. Director Investigation or Assessing Officer thereafter in the search proceedings.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 69 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs M/S. Vegetables Products Ltd on 29 January, 1973

11.4 It was further submitted that the plain reading of the relevant sections completely favours the assessees case. If there is any doubt, the benefit of doubt should be given to the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC). It has been held that, if the provisions of taxing are clear and unambiguous, full effect must be given to them irrespective of any consideration of equity. Where, however, the provisions are couched in language which is not free from ambiguity and admits of two interpretations, a view which is favourable to the subject should be accepted. The fact that such an interpretation is also in consonance with ordinary notions of equity and fairness would further fortify the Court in adopting such a course. It was further held that, if the language is plain, the fact that the consequence of giving effect to may lead to some absurd result is not a factor to be taken into account in interpreting the provision. It is for the legislature to step in and remove the absurdity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 1168 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1