Telangana High Court: Barring People with over Two Children From Polls Violates No Fundamental Right  ||  Del HC Clarifies That Breach of Promise to Marry is Not The Same as False Promise Amounting To Rape  ||  Delhi High Court Rules Law Students Cannot be Barred From Exams For Not Meeting Minimum Attendance  ||  Delhi HC: Only a Sessions Court, Not an Ilaqa Magistrate, Can Order Further Probe After Committal  ||  Allahabad High Court: Protecting Homebuyers’ Interests is Paramount in Real Estate Insolvency  ||  Allahabad HC: Police Can Freeze Accounts on Suspicion; Affected Party May Seek Magistrate’s Relief  ||  NCLAT: Claimants Must Prove Asset Ownership; Liquidator Need Not Establish Title of Assets in Custody  ||  NCLAT: Director’s Resignation Doesn’t Release Personal Guarantor from Continuing Guarantee Liability  ||  NCLAT: Delay Condonable When Composite Appeal Filed in Time is Refiled after Registry’s Objection  ||  Supreme Court: Upper Floors Can be Converted for Commercial Use Only after Paying Conversion Charges    

Navinchandra Mafatlal v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City - (Supreme Court) (01 Nov 1954)

Giving a constitutional enactment the widest possible meaning

MANU/SC/0070/1954

Direct Taxation

It seems prerequisite that any case seeking to send aftershocks into the legal system should have the word Mafatlal in it. Certainly, Mr. Mafatlal here may not quite comprise the elite constitutional club of his eponymous brethren, but its amplitude is no less wide. Considering if capital gain could be construed as income, the Court concluded that income in “its natural meaning embraces any profit or gain which is actually received”. In its obiter the Court provided much interpretational fodder and freedom to courts in the future; it noted, “words [in a constitutional enactment] should be read in their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning… the most liberal construction should be upon the words”.

Relevant : Wallace Brothers and Co. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax MANU/PR/0011/1948 United Provinces vs. Mt. Atiqa Begum and Ors. MANU/FE/0003/1940 The State of Bombay and Anr. vs. F.N. Balsara MANU/SC/0009/1951

Tags : INCOME   CONSTITUTION   INTERPRETATION   WIDEST   NATURAL MEANING  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved