9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come” of an assessee where “gross total income” is restricted to “profits and gains derived by OR from any business referred to in sub-section (4)”. The deduction is available of an . amount equal to hundred percent of the profits and gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years” subject to the provisions of the section. The meaning and intention of the legislature has been legally settled and well understood to mean that only those profits come under the ambit which can be said to be “derived from” such business. The intention of the legislature on a plain reading of the said sub-section is loud and clear. Reference to the decisions which establish a nexus of the first degree at this stage is refrained from as the position is well-settled legally and at this stage is not an issue for consideration in the present proceedings as both the parties agree that sub-section (1) of section 80-IA envisages only first degree nexus for the purposes of claiming deduction. The fact that deduction is available to hundred percent of the profits for a period of ten consecutive years is also not an issue under debate and even otherwise we find that the above provision in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The dispute of bringing sub-section (1) into play for a tax payer falling in sub-section (2A) of section 80-IA to our minds cannot arise. According to the assessee sub-section (2A) does not put the restriction contemplated in sub-section (1) of section 80-IA in the face of the non-obstante clause coupled with the specific omission to use the well understood term “derived from”. This argument is notwithstanding the argument that considering the assessee’s nature of business the direct nexus presumed by sub-section (1) of section 80-IA is also fulfilled. On a careful reading of the above provisions, we find that the legislature has left no ambiguity in the wording of the sub-section (2A). Having started with the non-obstante clause in sub-section (2A) which over-rides the mandate of sub-section (1) and (2), the legislature is well aware that the phrase “derived from” has been used only in sub-section (1). The meaning of the said terms is judicially well-accepted and understood and it is not the case of that Revenue that the legislature was not conscious of the said term. It is seen that the import of this term continues to exist for an assessee covered under subsection (2) of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of the undertaking. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that receipts amounting to ₹ 16,86,63,72,000/- on account of excess provision written back are entitled for deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T. Act ignoring the fact that write back of provision pertaining to earlier years which is no longer required is not an income derived from the business operations of the undertaking for the year under consideration. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that other receipts amounting to ₹ 1,42,90,32,000/- on account of sale of directories, publications, forms, waste paper, etc. are entitled for deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T. Act, ignoring that these receipts are on account of income connected with the business and cannot be termed to be explicitly derived from the principal business of the undertaking. 4. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any grounds of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee in the year under consideration [as per the assessment order dated 25.09.2009 u/s 263/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch would govern the issues raised. Non-consideration of the said provision it was submitted would lead to a gross miscarriage of justice as the relevance and import of the specific sub-section has been lost sight of by the authorities. The issue, it was submitted, has been considered in the light of the context of subsection (1) of section 80 IA. Decisions rendered considering the wordings derived from and attributable to have wrongly been relied upon in the facts of the present case namely:-Cambay Electric Supply Ltd. vs CIT 113 ITR 84 [1978] [SC]; CIT vs Sterling Foods Ltd. 237 ITR 579 [1999] [SC]; and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs CIT 262 ITR 278 [SC] and other decisions right upto the decision of Liberty Shoes. In all fairness it was stated that although the legal issue may not have been raised before the authorities below but the assessee cannot be barred from raising the issue as assessment has to be made and supported on the basis of the legal mandate as set out in the statute and if the assessee is able to show that the relevant provisions have not been correctly applied the assessee cannot be estopped from relying upon the specific provisions of the statute which anyway th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80-IA is reproduced hereunder :- 80-IA. (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any business referred to in sub-section (4) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction of an amount equal to hundred per cent of the profits and gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. (2) The deduction specified in sub-section (1) may, at the option of the assessee, be claimed by him for any ten consecutive assessment years out of fifteen years beginning from the year in which the undertaking or the enterprise develops and begins to operate any infrastructure facility or starts providing telecommunication service or develops an industrial park or develops a special economic zone referred to in clause (iii) of sub-section (4) or generates power or commences transmission or distribution of power or undertakes substantial renovation and modernisation of the existing transmission or distribution lines : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blications, forms, waste paper, etc. 142,90,32,000 6.2. Not convinced with the explanation offered the additions were made in the computation of income made under the normal provisions of the Act. 7. Aggrieved the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) set out the dispute for adjudication before him in para 2.9 of his order holding as under:- 2.9 These items of income are shown in the P L Account as extraordinary items, as reported by auditors as per Companies Act, and ICAI Act (AS-5). The dispute before me is whether these items of income are business income or income from other sources or other than business income, as per the I.T. Act. Another issue is whether these incomes (profits and gains) are derived by the PSU from the business of providing telecommunication services, whether basic or cellular, including radio paging, domestic satellite services, network of trunking, broadband network, and internet services on or after 01/04/1995, but on or before 31/03/2005. I have to analyze each item of income (profits and gains) discussed in the above table separately with relevant case laws appropriate to the issues. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al income includes profits derived from any business (being eligible business) by an undertaking from an eligible business. On the other hand, the tele-communication services, it was submitted is governed by sub-section (2A) wherein the Legislature has consciously used the words profits and gains of eligible business . Sub-section (2A) it was emphasized, starts with the nonobstante clause notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) thereby specifically excluding all undertakings providing tele-communication services from all other undertakings or enterprises specifically in regard to two matters. The first is the manner of determination of deduction available while computing taxable income and the second is the broken time durations for which specific amounts of deduction of 100% and 30% for the first end the next five assessment years would be available to such undertakings providing telecommunication service. Thus it was his submission that in respect of the undertakings providing tele-communication services the legislature has specifically excluded the requirements of the source of profit and gains to be obtained directly from tele-communication services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is entitled to the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of all profits and gains from tele-communication business regardless of its source and the deduction can not be restricted to profits directly derived from eligible business of telecommunication undertaking. 8.7. It was further submitted that had the legislature only meant to distinguish the rates of exemption allowed and the period of deduction to the companies providing tele-communication services as provided in sub-section (2A) of section 80IA of the Act, it could have been done by way of Proviso and not by means of an insertion of a new sub-section altogether. 8.8. Reliance was also placed upon the commentary of Kanga Palkivala Vyas The Law and practice of Income Tax , 12th Edition (page 32) wherein the function of proviso is explained as under:- the normal function of proviso is to carve out or except something out of the enactment or to qualify something enacted therein which but for the proviso would be within the purview of the enactment . A proviso is not applicable unless the substantive clause is applicable to the facts of the case; the proper function of a proviso is to except and dea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Sundra Rao vs State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC), for the proposition that it is one of the fundamental principles of interpretation of statute that omissions in statute as a general Rule cannot be supplied by construction. It was submitted that it is well-settled that while interpreting a provision a Court only interpret the law and cannot legislate. Even if a provision of law is misused and or is subjected to the abuse of the process of law it was submitted that it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal if deemed necessary. The Court it was submitted cannot make good the omission, if any in the statute. It was submitted that it is only where the statute is ambiguous or its meaning is uncertain that the Court can ascertain what the legislature meant. 8.15. In the facts of the present case it was submitted there is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the wording used in the statute. Referring to the relevant provisions of the Act it was submitted that non-inclusion of the phrase derived from is not a case of casus omisus since the difference between the phrases profits of the business and attributable from and derived from has not only been recognized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-use of the term derived from in section 80IA (2A) it was submitted has to be given due weightage and the fact that the legislature was always aware of its implication is an undisputed fact. It was submitted that whenever intended the legislature has used the phrase derived from in the provision starting with non-obstante clause to carve out of different specified assessees. For the said purpose, attention was invited to section 80IB(II) which being a non-obstante clause provides an exception to the general time limits as provided in section 80IB but uses the words deriving profits from business of . Thus it was submitted that the phrase has been used differently by the legislature as it was always aware of the implications of nonuse of the phrase derived from . It was submitted that such non-use cannot be stated to be the result of casus omisus . 8.18. Inviting attention to the doctrine of purposive construction considered to be the golden rule and which is an exception to the rule of literal interpretation it was submitted would also lead to the same conclusion. Referring to the decision of Grey vs Pearson [1857] 6 HL Cas 61 it was submitted that it is wellsettle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Rule of beneficial construction and the Rule of harmonious construction also it was submitted that these principles prescribed that provisions must be so construed that the meaning of the provision must harmonious with the intention of the legislature behind the provision in particular and the enactment in general. 8.22. At the cost of reiteration it was submitted that if the intention of the legislature was only to provide an exception to the telecom industry for rates of deduction then this purpose could have been achieved by way of a proviso to sub-section (1) of section 80IA. However, the legislature instead has introduced by the Finance Act, 2001, a separate sub-section (2A) which clearly depicts that the intention of the legislature was not only to differentiate between the rates of deduction allowable to telecommunication service provider but also to distinguish the method of computation of profits for the telecom industry. 8.23. It was submitted even the Notes to the clauses of the Finance Bill 2001 specify that sub-section 2A shall be inserted. 8.24. Carrying the argument further it was submitted that the circular subsequent to the amendment by the Finance A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... curred were for ensuring last mile connectivity to the sparsely populated out lying areas of the country at times in difficult terrain etc. providing telephone services at affordable prices right upto the village panchayat levels. In order to achieve the socially desired aims and objects of the policy where no private player in the sector would want to invest as the costs vis- -vis the profits are detrimental and not commercially viable. Thus these costs and expenses; the license fee etc. was to be reimbursed by the Government of India only because of the peculiar business requirements of the assessee as mandated. The compensation made by the Government of India it was submitted is so planned marking part compensation for the tariff differential in the provision of rural telephone services by the assessee vis- -vis the tariff charge in the urban areas. Thus these compensations are directly the consequence of the assessee undertaking the business of provision of telecommunication services in India. Thus it was submitted it was required to be considered that it flows from the very same business activity and thus is derived from the telecommunication business. Accordingly even on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if considered by importing the play of sub-section (1) in section (2A) of section 80-IA by considering them in the light of the phrase derived from the business of telecom undertaking and thus even otherwise the additions have been rightly deleted by the CIT(A) dismissing the departmental grounds and is to be allowed by accepting the assessee s grounds. 9.5. However, consideration of these issues it was submitted would arise only if the assessee failed in the preliminary argument that the wordings and phrase of sub-section (1) of section 80-IA cannot be imported in sub-section (2A) as it would be running foul of the intention of the legislature which was clear, explicit and unambiguous. 10. The Ld. CIT DR in reply relying upon the impugned order submitted that the language employed in section 80IA is very clear and self-sufficient and the said section provides an incentive for profits to undertakings limited to the extent that the profits are to be derived from the eligible business. Accordingly it was her stand that the arguments advanced in the context of the fact that the source of the assessee s business is providing telecommunication services to the remote areas/rural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had taken place as early as 11.3.1996 and there being no nexus between claim before insurance company and subsequent loss arising out of industrial activity, compensation could be considered for purpose of granting relief u/s 80IA Held, no [para 4] [In favour of revenue]. 10.2. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Essar Power Ltd. vs ACIT [2013] 32 taxmann.com 346 (Mumbai Trib.) copy of the same was also filed in the Court and specific reliance was placed upon the following head note:- II. Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Deductions Profits and gains from infrastructure undertakings [Computation of deduction] Assessment year 2003-04 Whether deduction u/s 80IA would not be allowed on interest on employee s loan and advances, interest on margin money and interest income on dues towards income tax refund Held, yes [para 9] [In favour of revenue]. 10.3. Carrying us through the departmental ground, it was her stand that the CIT(A) has not kept in mind the settled legal position addressed by the Apex Court in the case of Liberty Shoes Ltd. on the requirements of a direct nexus. Thus on each of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llA) [as they stood at the relevant time]. The phrase Derived from has been a very contentious issue while applying the provisions of Sections 80lA and 80lB of the Act and other similar provisions contain same phrase. The issue revolves around the contention whether deduction is applicable for all receipts/income of the ,assessee or is it restricted to profits and gains derived from . The phrase derived from used in the Sections 80IA(1) and 80IB(1) of the Act IS highlighted for reference below:- 80-IA(1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise ......................... a deduction of an amount equal to hundred per cent of the profits and gain derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. The issue has been discussed in detail in various judgments, which clearly brings about the concept of income derived from in contrast to other related concept like income attributable to . The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Cambay Electrical Supply Co. Ltd. 113 ITR 84 highlights the distinction between the two expressions. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the relief granted is contrary to the said decision and the clear mandate of law. Reliance was also placed upon the assessment order. 10.6. Though the Ld.CIT DR had initially taken the stand in passing after advancing her arguments that the legal position was not canvassed by the assessee before the CIT(A) and thus in the absence of any discussion in the impugned order the issue may be sent back to the CIT(A). However, the argument as observed was made in passing after addressing the departmental position and was not carried further on any of the subsequent dates when the issues came up for hearing. Accordingly the raising of the said argument stands unopposed on record. 11. Reverting to the counter arguments of the Ld. Sr. Advocate addressing the departmental request that the issue may be sent back it was submitted that it is a legal argument and can be taken at any stage. It was further submitted that no handicap can be stated to have been caused to the department by arguing this law point and no jurisprudence needs to be cited in order to canvass that the relevant provision of the statute have to be correctly interpreted. 11.1. Inviting attention to the decisions re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laced on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Rollatainers Ltd. (supra) is totally misplaced, since, as is evident from the order of the Tribunal, the case dealt with by the Delhi Bench related to the compensation received on the goods damaged while in transit. As far as the present case is concerned, even though we directed the assessee to produce the details regarding the fire accident and the policy, the assessee could not produce the same before this Court to substantiate its contention, and there being no material to substantiate the contention of the assessee linking the loss to the fire accident, we do not find any justifiable ground to accept the order of the Tribunal which is not based on factual findings. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in accepting the plea of the Revenue, thereby, set aside the order of the Tribunal. 11.3. Addressing the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Liberty Shoes Ltd. (cited supra) it was submitted that the said decision would have no relevance to the facts of the present case. The relevant extract of the synopsis filed on behalf of the assessee is extracted hereunder for ready-reference: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into the provision of sub-section (2A) of section 80-IA. The argument has been that this issue which should have been addressed at the threshold as a preliminary issue has been left unaddressed. It has been submitted that none of the additions could have been made as the reasoning for sustaining the same by the CIT(A) is against the legislative intent as set out in sub-section (2A) of section 80IA. Accordingly it was submitted that the issue needs to be decided at the threshold as a preliminary issue. The issue if decided in assessee s favour it was submitted would make the other grounds in the assessee s appeal and the grounds in the Revenue s appeal academic in nature. In support of raising this issue, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Hukumchand vs CIT 63 ITR 362 and NHPC 292 ITR 383 (SC). We find that since the Revenue has not objected to the raising of this preliminary objection taken as Ground No.4 in the grounds raised by the assessee, we need not deliberate on the well-accepted judicial precedent settled therein in the peculiar facts of the case. We note that the Ld. CIT DR has repeatedly on each of the days the appeals came up for h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rued in the context for imposition of tax or allow deduction. 13.2. On a reading of sub-section (1) of section 80-IA, we find that the legislature specifically uses the words meaning and import of which is plain and unambiguous in the context it is to be construed. Deduction under section 80- IA in terms of sub-section (1) is available to gross total income of an assessee where gross total income is restricted to profits and gains derived by........ from any business referred to in sub-section (4) . The deduction is available of an . amount equal to hundred percent of the profits and gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years subject to the provisions of the section. The meaning and intention of the legislature has been legally settled and well understood to mean that only those profits come under the ambit which can be said to be derived from such business. The intention of the legislature on a plain reading of the said sub-section is loud and clear. Reference to the decisions which establish a nexus of the first degree at this stage is refrained from as the position is well-settled legally and at this stage is not an issue for consideration i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for deduction may not be there in the initial 5 years also permits the option to claim deduction for the period of ten consecutive years from the first 15 years. Thus full play of the restriction placed on the profits available for deduction has been permitted and upto this stage both the parties have no objection to the literal meaning of the said subI. section to be construed in the above manner. 13.5. It is seen that the Legislature by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f 01.04.2005 substituted the original proviso to sub-section (2) by inserting the following proviso, the same is again extracted hereunder for ready-reference:- 80-IA. (1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Provided that where the assessee develops or operates and maintains or develops, operates and maintains any infrastructure facility referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of the Explanation to clause (i) of subsection (4), the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words fifteen years , the words twenty years had been substituted. 13.6. A plain reading of the above proviso to sub-section (2) of section 80-IA shows that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legislative intent by inserting the well understood word Notwithstanding . The meaning and the consequent legislative intent can clearly be understood by the subsequent words used anything contained in . . Thus as literally as it can be read the legislative intent of Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is plain and clear. The clear meaning of this non-obstante clause, which is reflected upto this stage is that whatever may have been contained in subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of section 80-IA is to be excluded. This position is fortified by the conscious inclusion of the word anything contained in which qualifies notwithstanding . The meaning and import of the term notwithstanding is well-settled and understood and by itself cannot be said to be leading to any ambiguity. The said term by itself would have been sufficient and complete to convey the legislative intent that whatever may have been said in sub-section (1) and (2) but the legislature has not rested there and has taken care to qualify the word with the all encompassing, all inclusive, well understood word anything contained in sub-section (1) or (2). The meaning, use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meline of 15 years for exercising the option contained in subsection (2) by making a specific reference to it. Thus conscious of the fact that sub-section (1) and (2) had completely been over-ridden for an assessee falling in section (2A) reference to sub-section (2) is made only for the purposes of increasing the timeline from which the assessee could opt for selecting ten consecutive years out of the total 15 years. 13.10. Thus the dispute of bringing sub-section (1) into play for a tax payer falling in sub-section (2A) of section 80-IA to our minds cannot arise. According to the assessee sub-section (2A) does not put the restriction contemplated in sub-section (1) of section 80-IA in the face of the non-obstante clause coupled with the specific omission to use the well understood term derived from . This argument is notwithstanding the argument that considering the assessee s nature of business the direct nexus presumed by sub-section (1) of section 80-IA is also fulfilled. On a careful reading of the above provisions, we find that the legislature has left no ambiguity in the wording of the sub-section (2A). Having started with the non-obstante clause in sub-section (2A) whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o look merely at what is clearly stated. The meaning and extent of the statute must be collected from the plain and unambiguous expression used therein rather than from any notions which may be considered to be just or expedient. To put in the words Rowlatt J. as held in Cape Brandy Syndicate vs Commissioners of Inland Revenue [(1921) 1 KB 64, 71]. In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. 13.13. Interpretation postulates the search for the true meaning of the words used in the statutes as a medium of expression to communicate a particular thought. The task is not easy as the language used even in ordinary conversation or correspondence is capable of being mis-understood, however in such cases the person using the language can be approached for a clarification. The language used in a statute till it is amended, repealed or modified remains static as the Legislature cannot be approached for clarification. After having enacted a law or an act, the legislatu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lare it be thus, giving its reasons, so that the Legislature may take notice and promptly remedy the situation. Reliance can be placed on Standard Chartered Bank vs Directorate of Enforcement [2005] 275 ITR 81 at page 86 (SC). 13.17. The settled principles of interpretation are that the Court must proceed on the assumption that the legislature did not make a mistake and that it did what it intended to do. The Court must, as far as possible, adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the Legislature. Undoubtedly, if there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the Legislature, the Court would not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. The Court could not add words to statutes or read words into it which are not there, especially when the literal reading produces intelligible results. Reference may be made to Dadi Jaganath Dham vs Jammullu Ramulu AIR [2001] (SC) 2699 at 2703. Any presumption to the contrary in the absence of any ambiguity would be contrary to the settled legal position as the legislature as far as possible is presumed to know what it intends to stay. 13.18. Thus reverting again to considering the words use in sub-se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no doubt that the assessee falls under clause (ii) of sub-section (4) and is such an enterprise providing telecommunication services. After having over-ridden the requirements of subsection (1) and (2) completely the legislature in its wisdom has directed that hundred percent of the profits and gains of the eligible business and not the profits and gains derived from can be claimed as a deduction in the first five assessment years by such an enterprise commencing at any time during the periods as specified in sub-section (2) and thereafter thirty percent of such profits for further five assessment years. Thus giving due recognition for the peculiarities of the telecommunication services where heavy investment costs in the initial years are a necessity they have been allowed to be recovered by way of profits to the extent of hundred percent from that activity in the first five years and thereafter the allowable deduction is substantially reduced to thirty percent in the next five years presuming that by then the heavy infrastructural costs would have been recovered and/or the objectives of the governmental policy would have been attained. Keeping in mind the services and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e legal issue were not so argued before the tax authorities. We record our appreciation for the confident and effective representation of Ld. CIT DR, Ms. A.Mishra. We also put on record our appreciation for the well-seasoned and tempered arguments advanced by Sr. Advocate, Mr. P. Pardiwala supported by the synopsis and updated synopsis prepared and filed by his team of lawyers. However having minutely gone through the case laws and the proposition relied upon which we have brought out in the earlier part of this order, we find that in the face of the clear mandate of law addressing the case laws which are on entirely different facts and considering different set of provisions reference thereto would be out of context as it would be of no help to decide the issue which we find is clear from the very language used by the Legislature in the statutory provisions under consideration. The meaning which the Revenue would want us to read into the said provision would be in violation of the basic fundamental principles of interpretation of statutes namely that the Courts cannot write the laws as legislation is the domain of the Legislature, the Courts can only interpret the law; any Interpr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
