Indian Government. 3.9. CIT v. S.R.M Firm

208 ITR 400High Court1994#2888 most cited

What is Indian Government. 3.9. CIT v. S.R.M Firm authority for?

Tax treaties are considered self-contained mini legislation that encompass all relevant aspects, and these features may differ from the general taxation laws of the respective countries.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S.R.M. Firm · 208 ITR 400 · Section 90(3) · tax treaties · Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement · DTAA · mini legislation · domestic tax law · variance with general laws · international taxation · sovereign nations

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 163Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 90(3)section 65(b)section 65b(4)section 163section 276section 2(26)section 129(1)section 43dsection 2(17)section 36(2)(v)section 153b(1)section 41(4)

Judgments citing Indian Government. 3.9. CIT v. S.R.M Firm

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…hat one established rule for interpretation of legislation is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. Similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in V.R.S.M Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400 (Madras). 99. We noted from the above discussion that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Bank of India (supra), wherein the co-ordinate Bench held that income attributable to foreign branches being permanent establishment outside India cannot be taxed in India, having regard to the mandate given in Article 7(1) of the DTAA. This vi…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…hat one established rule for interpretation of legislation is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. Similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in V.R.S.M Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400 (Madras). 99. We noted from the above discussion that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Bank of India (supra), wherein the co-ordinate Bench held that income attributable to foreign branches being permanent establishment outside India cannot be taxed in India, having regard to the mandate given in Article 7(1) of the DTAA. This vi…

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LIMITED,HONG KONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2020-21 is partly allowed

ITA 2674/DEL/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2353 और 2674/धिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2020-21 और 2021-22)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Aditya Vohra & Tanmay Dhakras, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ndirectly, but effectively amending the treaty unilaterally. As held in Azadi Bachao Andolan's case (supra) these treaties are creations of a different process subject to negotiations by sovereign nations. The Madras High Court, in CIT v VR. S.RM. Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400 held that "tax treaties are considered to be mini legislation containing in themselves all the relevant aspects or features which are at variance with the general taxation laws of the respective countries". 45. At the very outset, it should be understood that it is not as if the DTAAs completely prohibit reliance on domestic law. Under these, a r…

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LIMITED,HONGKONG vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2020-21 is partly allowed

ITA 2353/DEL/2023[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2353 और 2674/धिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2020-21 और 2021-22)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Aditya Vohra & Tanmay Dhakras, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ndirectly, but effectively amending the treaty unilaterally. As held in Azadi Bachao Andolan's case (supra) these treaties are creations of a different process subject to negotiations by sovereign nations. The Madras High Court, in CIT v VR. S.RM. Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400 held that "tax treaties are considered to be mini legislation containing in themselves all the relevant aspects or features which are at variance with the general taxation laws of the respective countries". 45. At the very outset, it should be understood that it is not as if the DTAAs completely prohibit reliance on domestic law. Under these, a r…

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2119/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…on'ble Supreme Court P.V.A.L. Kulandayan Chettiar\n(supra) and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt CIT v. P.V.A.L. kulandavan Chettiar [2008] 300 ITR 5, CIT v. Bank of\nIndia [64 taxmann.com 335 (Bom)], CIT v. VRSRM Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400\n(Mad.), CIT v. R M Muthiah [1993] 67 Taxman 222/202 ITR 508 (Karnataka).\nDy. CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune), Apollo\nHospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. C…

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…on'ble Supreme Court P.V.A.L. Kulandayan Chettiar\n(supra) and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt CIT v. P.V.A.L. kulandavan Chettiar [2008] 300 ITR 5, CIT v. Bank of\nIndia [64 taxmann.com 335 (Bom)], CIT v. VRSRM Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400\n(Mad.), CIT v. R M Muthiah [1993] 67 Taxman 222/202 ITR 508 (Karnataka).\nDy. CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune), Apollo\nHospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. C…

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2038/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…on'ble Supreme Court P.V.A.L. Kulandayan Chettiar\n(supra) and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt CIT v. P.V.A.L. kulandavan Chettiar [2008] 300 ITR 5, CIT v. Bank of\nIndia [64 taxmann.com 335 (Bom)], CIT v. VRSRM Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400\n(Mad.), CIT v. R M Muthiah [1993] 67 Taxman 222/202 ITR 508 (Karnataka).\nDy. CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune), Apollo\nHospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. C…

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2037/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…on'ble Supreme Court P.V.A.L. Kulandayan Chettiar\n(supra) and a review petition has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt CIT v. P.V.A.L. kulandavan Chettiar [2008] 300 ITR 5, CIT v. Bank of\nIndia [64 taxmann.com 335 (Bom)], CIT v. VRSRM Firm [1994] 208 ITR 400\n(Mad.), CIT v. R M Muthiah [1993] 67 Taxman 222/202 ITR 508 (Karnataka).\nDy. CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd. [2008] 114 ITD 159 (Pune), Apollo\nHospitals Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 168/53 SOT 103\n(Chennai)]. Dy. CIT v. Turquoise Investments & Finance Ltd. [2008] 168\nTaxman 107/300 ITR 1 (SC), Ms. Pooja Bhatt v. DY. C…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…lowing judicial precedents:- ` i. PAVLKulandagan Chettiar (3 ITD 426) (special bench)upheld by the honourable High Court and by the honourable Supreme Court in 267 ITR 654 wherein the review petition was also dismissed in 300 ITR 5 ii. CIT versus VRSRM form (208 ITR 400) Madras) iii. CIT versus RM Muthiah(202 ITR 508 (Karnataka) iv. DCIT versus Patni computer systems limited (114 ITD 159 (Pune) v. Apollo hospitals Enterprises Ltd (53 SOT 103) (Chennai) vi. DCIT versus Turquoise Investment and Finance Limited (2008) ( 300 ITR 1) (SC) vii. Pooja Bhatt versus DCIT (2008) 26 SOT 574 (MU M) viii. DCIT versus Mideast…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…l precedents:- Page | 104 i. PAVLKulandagan Chettiar (3 ITD 426) (special bench)upheld by the honourable High Court and by the honourable Supreme Court in 267 ITR 654 wherein the review petition was also dismissed in 300 ITR 5 ii. CIT versus VRSRM form (208 ITR 400) Madras) iii. CIT versus RM Muthiah(202 ITR 508 (Karnataka) iv. DCIT versus Patni computer systems limited (114 ITD 159 (Pune) v. Apollo hospitals Enterprises Ltd (53 SOT 103) (Chennai) vi. DCIT versus Turquoise Investment and Finance Limited (2008) ( 300 ITR 1) (SC) vii. Pooja Bhatt versus DCIT (2008) 26 SOT 574 (MU M) viii. DCIT versus M…

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 7760/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Government is recognised to have this power, then it would take away such power from the Indian Government. 3.9. CIT v. S.R.M Firm, [1994] 208 ITR 400 (MAD.), 15.03.1994. Madras High Court (Page 458-468 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (…

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 7759/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Government is recognised to have this power, then it would take away such power from the Indian Government. 3.9. CIT v. S.R.M Firm, [1994] 208 ITR 400 (MAD.), 15.03.1994. Madras High Court (Page 458-468 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (…

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 7758/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Government is recognised to have this power, then it would take away such power from the Indian Government. 3.9. CIT v. S.R.M Firm, [1994] 208 ITR 400 (MAD.), 15.03.1994. Madras High Court (Page 458-468 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (…

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 7757/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Government is recognised to have this power, then it would take away such power from the Indian Government. 3.9. CIT v. S.R.M Firm, [1994] 208 ITR 400 (MAD.), 15.03.1994. Madras High Court (Page 458-468 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (…

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 7756/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Government is recognised to have this power, then it would take away such power from the Indian Government. 3.9. CIT v. S.R.M Firm, [1994] 208 ITR 400 (MAD.), 15.03.1994. Madras High Court (Page 458-468 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (…

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6769/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Government is recognised to have this power, then it would take away such power from the Indian Government. 3.9. CIT v. S.R.M Firm, [1994] 208 ITR 400 (MAD.), 15.03.1994. Madras High Court (Page 458-468 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (…

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6767/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Government is recognised to have this power, then it would take away such power from the Indian Government. 3.9. CIT v. S.R.M Firm, [1994] 208 ITR 400 (MAD.), 15.03.1994. Madras High Court (Page 458-468 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (…

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6744/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Government is recognised to have this power, then it would take away such power from the Indian Government. 3.9. CIT v. S.R.M Firm, [1994] 208 ITR 400 (MAD.), 15.03.1994. Madras High Court (Page 458-468 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (…

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6743/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Government is recognised to have this power, then it would take away such power from the Indian Government. 3.9. CIT v. S.R.M Firm, [1994] 208 ITR 400 (MAD.), 15.03.1994. Madras High Court (Page 458-468 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (…

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3627/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…the revenue generated from immovable property in Malaysia may be taxed by the Malaysian government and if the Malaysian Government is recognised to have this power, then it would take away such power from the Indian Government. 3.9. CIT v. S.R.M Firm, [1994] 208 ITR 400 (MAD.), 15.03.1994. Madras High Court (Page 458-468 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (…

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3