LawCite Search |
LawCite Markup Tool |
Help |
Feedback
Law Cite |
Case Name | Citation(s) | Court | Jurisdiction | Date † | Full Text | Citation Index | |
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras v S Raman Chettiar |
|
circa 1965 |
|
||||
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) |
|
Privy Council | India | circa 1940 |
|
||
Balchand v Income-Tax Officer, Sagar |
|
circa 1940 |
|
||||
CIT v A Raman & Co |
|
circa 1940 |
|
||||
SNarayanappa v Commissioner of Income Tax |
|
circa 1940 |
|
||||
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v Ranchoddas Karsondas |
|
circa 1940 |
|