Mobile View
Advanced Search Search Tips
Order results by
Relevance
Document Types
All
1 - 10 of 11386 (1.53 seconds)

General Clauses Act, 1897 by necessary implication. The Mischief Rule in Heydon's case decided in the year ... confined to above circumstances. The real reason of the Mischief Rule is, "ambiguity". It does not matter how the ambiguity
Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Cites 30 - Cited by 2 -
2000 (1) MPHT 253
- S Pandey
established rule for construction of such words is the rule laid down in Heydon's case which has now attained ... construction which shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. Applying the said rule to the assessee's case
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
- Cites 27 - Cited by 0 -
(2008) 117 TTJ Delhi 289
General Clauses Act, 1897, by necessary implication. The Mischief Rule in Heydon's case decided in the year ... confined to above circumstances. The real reason of the Mischief Rule is ambiguity. It does not matter how the ambiguity
Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Cites 29 - Cited by 0 -
2001 ACJ 246
- S Pandey
amended provisions, then the Hyden's Mischief Rule of interpretation should be applied. It was submitted by him that ... assessee has also sought to apply the Hyden's Mischief Rule and reliance was placed on the judgment of Surat
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
- Cites 33 - Cited by 0 -
2006 100 ITD 285 Mum
observations of the DRT which are as follows:- "The rule of construction is found in Heydon's Case ... country and in that context the Court applied the Mischief Rule. While interpreting the words 'acquires possession' or 'keeping
Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
- Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - S Sen
provision and render it almost nugatory. (13) The mischief rule and evasion theory are not new in the realm ... application of the mischief rule and the theory of advancing the remedy, is not unknown even in the interpretation
Delhi High Court
- Cites 19 - Cited by 3 -
11 (1975) DLT 172
- H Anand
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Wall Street Finance Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs (Prev
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
- Cites 30 - Cited by 2 -
2000 (69) ECC 109
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Dr. J.N. Mokashi vs Income-Tax Officer on 20
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
- Cites 25 - Cited by 1 -
1983 3 ITD 774 Mum
statute is Heydon's rule also known as Mischief rule which deals with ascertaining the correct intention of the Legislature ... defect. (d) the true reasons of the remedy. The Mischief rule was reap proved by, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
Delhi High Court
- Cites 17 - Cited by 0 -
2001 75 ITD 455 Delhi
Calcutta High Court Calcutta National Bank Ltd. (In ... vs Rangaroon Tea Co. Ltd. And Ors
Calcutta High Court
- Cites 17 - Cited by 0 -
AIR 1969 Cal 578
- A Ray
Get new documents for this query in your RSS feed reader -
1  
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next