Corporation of City of Toronto v. Attorney-General for Canada

11 SCC 632Reported decision2003#18692 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 37

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)true and full disclosuresection 34(1)full and true disclosurefirst proviso to section 147material facts necessary for assessmentkelvinatormere change of opinionlive linksection 34income escaping assessmentcommercial expediency

Judgments citing Corporation of City of Toronto v. Attorney-General for Canada

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

ITA 7429/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…ude by implication what the enactment clearly says unless the words of the proviso are such that that is its necessary effect. (Vide also Corporation of City of Toronto v. Attorney-General for Canada [(1946) AC 32, 37])" In Ali M.K. v. State of Kerala: (2003) 11 SCC 632, the Supreme Court made similar observations:- "10. The normal function of a proviso is to 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. As was stated in Mullins v. Treasurer of Surrey [(1880) 5 QBD 170 : 42 LT 128] (referred to in Shah Bhojraj…

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

ITA 7428/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…ude by implication what the enactment clearly says unless the words of the proviso are such that that is its necessary effect. (Vide also Corporation of City of Toronto v. Attorney-General for Canada [(1946) AC 32, 37])" In Ali M.K. v. State of Kerala: (2003) 11 SCC 632, the Supreme Court made similar observations:- "10. The normal function of a proviso is to 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. As was stated in Mullins v. Treasurer of Surrey [(1880) 5 QBD 170 : 42 LT 128] (referred to in Shah Bhojraj…

Btl Holding Co. Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

ITA 7427/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…ude by implication what the enactment clearly says unless the words of the proviso are such that that is its necessary effect. (Vide also Corporation of City of Toronto v. Attorney-General for Canada [(1946) AC 32, 37])" In Ali M.K. v. State of Kerala: (2003) 11 SCC 632, the Supreme Court made similar observations:- "10. The normal function of a proviso is to 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. As was stated in Mullins v. Treasurer of Surrey [(1880) 5 QBD 170 : 42 LT 128] (referred to in Shah Bhojraj…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Abir Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2068/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Abir Infrastructure Pvt. Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Central Circle – 1(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafc3608N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…plication what the enactment clearly says unless the words of the proviso are such that it is necessary effect. ( Vide also Corporation of City of Toronto Vs Attorney General for Canada (1946) AC 32, 37. 8.1.2 In Ali M. K Vs State of Kerala (2003) AlR SC 4006/11 SCC 632, SC made similar observations: " 10. The normal function of a proviso is to exempt something out of the enactment or to qualify something enacted therein which but for the proviso would be within the purview of the enactment. As was stated in Mullins Vs Treasurer of Survey (1880) 5 QBD 170: 42 LT 128 (referred to in Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills…

Corporation of City of Toronto v. Attorney-General for Canada (11 SCC 632) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax