Case Details

Citation(s)
1976 SLG 38 1976 SLD 38 (1977) 35 TAX 169
Lahore High Court
Civil Reference (Tax Reference) No.175 of 1971, decision dated: 13.5 .1976. dates of hearing : 12th and 13-05-1976
SHAMEEM HUSSAIN KADRI AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
M.A. Butter, for the Appellant Sh. Abdul Haq, for the
Respondent

DREAMLAND CINEMA, MULTAN

VS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE

Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section: 24,24(2),30A

[Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)].........Section 24(2), Expl. 2 (inserted by Finance Act, 1967)-Retrospective operation of the Explanation-Explanation 2 added to Section 24(2) with the object of removing a doubt-Whether expressly explanatory in nature-Held yes-Whether applicable retrospectively to all relevant cases pending at the relevant time-Held yes The amendment under review is of explanatory type stated to have been introduced "for the avoidance of doubt". The rule about interpretation of such statute is distinct though the principles of interpretation of taxing statutes would apply if attracted to the situation. A reading of the explanation would show the intention of the Legislature was to remove a doubt and explain the intended import of the original provision. If the object of the statute is to explain the provisions or to remove a doubt, the law would apply retrospectively. The addition of Explanation 2 to Section 24(2) was with the object of removing a doubt (probably created by the two s of the West Pakistan High Court) (in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Yousuf & Co. (1967) 15 TAX 4 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tayab Moosa & Co-(1967) 15 TAX 62). The enactment was expressly explanatory in nature. Therefore, it had to apply retrospectively to all the relevant cases pending on that date. Cases referred to: Nicol v, Verelet (1779)26 E.R 751; Jones v. Bonnet (1890) 63 L.T. 705; Muhammadi Bibi v. Kashi Upadhya (A I R 1926 All. 725 ; Joti Ram Khan v. Janaki Nath Joshi 33 I.C. 54 ;Mst. Rashid Bibi v. Tufail Muhammad (A.I.R. 1941 Lah 291); Bappu Ayyar v. Ranganayaki (A I R. 1955 Mad. 394 : Varalakshmi Viramulu (A.I.R. 1956/ Hyd. 7 ) ; Abdul Hamid v- The State (P.L.D. 1963 Kar. 373 ; Pennirselvem v, Veerish Vendayar (A.I.R. 1931 Mad, 83; Commissioner of Soles Tax v. Kruddsons Ltd. (P.L D. 1974 S.C. 180; Young v, Adams (1898) A. .469; Muhammad Amir Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty (P,L D. 1961 S.C 119) ; (1961) 3 Taxation 166 (S.C.) ; Muhammadi Steamship Co. (R.L.D. 1966 S.C. 828) ; (1961) 14 Taxation 28l(S.C.) Commissioner of income Tax v. Yousuf & Co. (1967) 15 Taxation 4 ; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tayab Moosa & Co.(1967) 15…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492