Case Details

Citation(s)
1988 SLG 79 1988 SLD 79 1988 PTD 734 (1988) 58 TAX 148
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
I.T.As. Nos. 117/LB to 122/LB of 1986-87, 569/LB and 570/LB of 1981-82, decision dated: 26-06-1988, hearing DATE : 21st June, 1988
FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND A. A. ZUBERI, MEMBERS
Siddiqui Akhtar Chaudhry, I.T.P. for Appellant./
Respondent. Nazir Ahmed Saleemi, A.C./D.R. for
Respondent./ Appellant

Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law:

Section:

(a) Interpretation of statutes-- ---Intent of the legislature as manifested by the words used in the statute must be given effect--Principles to be followed in case of ambiguity found in a provision. Intent of the Legislature as manifested by the words used in any statute must be given effect. However, if there is any ambiguity reference could be made to earlier legislation. A provision is to be held ambiguous only if it contains a word or phrase, which in that particular context is capable of having more than one meaning. By an ambiguity is meant a phrase fairly and equally open to diverse meanings. Where the language is of doubtful meaning or where an adherence to the strict letter would lead to injustice, hardship or to contradictory positions, it becomes the duty of a Court to ascertain the true meaning. In fact it is in this area of legislative ambiguities that Courts have to fill in the gaps., clear the doubts and remove the hardship. It is not permissible first to create an artificial ambiguity and then try to resolve it by taking resort to some general principles of interpretation. A provision of law, which is benevolent in nature should be interpreted in such a way that it extends its scope instead of creating a. mischief. P L D 1976 Lah. 1502; Kirkness v. John Hutson & Co. Ltd. (1955) 2 All ER 345; C.I.T. (Madras) v. Indian Bank Ltd.. AIR 1965 SC 1473; Sevantilal Maneklal v. C.I.T. A I R 1968 SC 697 and C.I.T. v. Maburat Mills fro. Ltd. (1973) 89 I T R 45 ref. (b) Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--Sched. III, Rr.1, 2 & 8(7)(b)(ii)--Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), S.10(2)(n)--Depreciation allowance--Determination of written down value of assets--Principles--Expression depreciation actually allowed--Meaning--Depreciation allowance when can be allowed-¬Aggregate of allowances for depreciation which was to be reduced from the actual cost is that which was allowed to the assessee under the Ordinance or repealed Act in respect of assessments for earlier year--Whatever dopreciation allowance is allowed to an assessee either under the repealed Act or the Ordinance in earlier years, the total amount thereof would be deducted from the actual cost for…
🔒
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