|
K S Rashid and Sons Vs ITO
|
(1964) 52 ITR 355
|
|
|
circa 1964
|
|
|
 3
|
|
Mahairam Kamjidas's(1)case ','makes the machinery workable, utres valeat potius quam pereat" We, therefore, think that we should read sub-sec (6), according to the provision of which interest has to be calculated as provided in sub-sec (8) in a manner which makes it workable and thereby prevent the clear intention of sub-sec (8) being defeated Now, how is that best done? As we have (1)
|
(1940) 8 ITR 442; AIR 1940 PC 124
|
Privy Council
|
India
|
circa 1940
|
|
|
|
|
SNarayanappa v Commissioner of Income Tax
|
63 ITR 219
|
|
|
circa 1940
|
|
|
25 
|
