9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act"), the Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee's one-fourth share in the composition fee of Rs. 53,179 was an admissible deduction under section 24(1)(ii) from his property income ? " The relevant facts as gleaned from the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... started construction of the building. Though reply from the Government was awaited, the building was completed. In 1968, certain objections were raised to the construction being made without a valid extension of time and thereafter the assessee and three co-owners paid Rs. 53,179 as compounding fee. Of the aforesaid amount, the assessee claimed deduction in respect of Rs. 13,924 representing one- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -- . . . . (ii) the amount of any premium paid to insure the property against risk of damage or destruction. " What is deductible under section 24(1)(ii) is premium paid to insure property against risk of damage or destruction. The cardinal principle of law is that fiscal laws should be interpreted strictly. The plain language employed in clause (ii) of section 24(1) clearly indicates that this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the risk of damage or destruction. A statutory provision, particularly, a provision of the Income-tax Act should be read as far as possible confining to the plain language without importing any foreign words and subtracting any word therefrom. On a strict interpretation as it should be section 24(1)(ii) simply allows deduction of an amount of any premium paid to insure property against risk of da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
