Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 44 (0.25 seconds)Section 158BD in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 158BC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 132A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 158BE in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
J. Srinivasa Rao vs Govt. Of A.P. & Anr on 24 November, 2006
In J. Srinivasa Rao (supra), this Court noticed the decisions of this
Court in Gursahai Saigal v.Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, [1963] 1
ITR 48(SC) and Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai,
2006(202)ELT561(SC).In Gursahai Saigal (supra), the question which fell for
consideration before this Court was construction of the machinery
provisions vis-à-vis the charging provisions. Schedule appended to the
Motor Vehicles Act is not machinery provision. It is a part of the charging
provision. By giving a plain meaning to the Schedule appended to the Act,
the machinery provision does not become unworkable. It did not prevent the
clear intention of the legislature from being defeated. It can be given an
appropriate meaning.”
Section 142 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 158B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Prakash Nath Khanna & Anr vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr on 16 February, 2004
In Prakash Nath Khanna v. C.I.T., 2004 (9) SCC 686, this Court has
explained that the language employed in a statute is the determinative
factor of the legislative intent. The legislature is presumed to have
made no mistake. The presumption is that it intended to say what it
has said. Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used
by the legislature, the Court cannot correct or make up the
deficiency.