| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG 3007 = 1962 SLD 3007 = 1962 PLD 809 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Reference No. 7 of 1960, decided on 13th April 1962.
Presented By: Muhammad Yaqub Ali and S. A. Mahmood, JJ
Saeed Akhtar for Petitioner. S. A. Haque for
Respondent. Date of hearing : 29th March 1962.
Civil Reference No. 7 of 1960, decided on 13th April 1962.
Presented By: Muhammad Yaqub Ali and S. A. Mahmood, JJ
Saeed Akhtar for Petitioner. S. A. Haque for
Respondent. Date of hearing : 29th March 1962.
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section: S. 16 (3)(a)(ii)
In the matter of INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENT OF Mst. FATIMA BIBI (a) Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 16 (3)(a)(ii)- Share income of minor admitted to benefits of partnership in which his mother also is a partner-Not to be included in `total income' of mother-Word `individual' does not Include female-Interpretation of Statutes-Same word occurring at various places in statute-Not necessarily to carry same sense. Share income of minor admitted to the benefits of partner ship in which his mother is also a partner cannot be included in her `total income.' The word "individual" in subsection (3) of section 16, Income-tax Act, 1922, has been used for the male and not for the female. The four clauses of section 16 (3) (a) provide for the case of incomes of the wives and the minors. Clauses (i) and (iii) deal with the income of the wife in a firm of which her husband is a partner and from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the wife by the husband otherwise than for adequate consideration or in connection with an agreement to live apart, or so much of the income of a minor child of such individual as arises directly or indirectly. It is not necessary to construe the same word in the same sense throughout an Act and any presumption that may exist in favour of such a construction is very slight. The same words may often receive different interpretation in different parts of the same Act, for they may convey one intention in one part of the Act and a different intention in another context. Akbari Begum v. Commissioner of Income-tax, East Bengal 1959 Tax. Vol. I at p. 313 dissented from. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh and Bhopal v. Sodra Devi, Damyanti Sahni v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1957) 32 1 T R 615 rel. Ramiza Bi Saheba v. Income-tax Officer Circle IV, Madras (1959) 37 I T R 207 ; Commissioner of Income-tax v. Damyanti Sahni A I R 1953 Ph. 199 and Jagram Malik v. State of Madhya Pradesh A I R 1955 Nag. 160 ref. (b) Interpretation of Statutes-Amendment of provisions-- Statement of Objects and Reasons, when may be referred to Ambiguity to fiscal statute-Benefit to go to…