Lord Hoffman in Macniven H.M. Inspector of Taxes v. Westmoreland Investments Ltd.

255 ITR 612Reported decision2002#24025 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Judgments citing Lord Hoffman in Macniven H.M. Inspector of Taxes v. Westmoreland Investments Ltd.

Shalini Anand Murthy, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2404/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri.Srinivas S KotaFor Respondent: Shri Satyapal Kumar, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54F

…(Lord construction are no more than guides assist the task of interpretation (Lord Hoffman in Macniven H ven H.M. Inspector of Taxes v, Westmorland Investments M. Inspector of Taxes v, Westmorland Investments Ltd. [2001] 2 WLR 337 (HL); 2 WLR 337 (HL); [2002] 255 ITR 612). It is further of particular It is further of particular importance to note that the courts must avoid the importance to note that the courts must avoid the danger of a priori determination of the meaning of a provision based on their danger of a priori determination of the meaning of a provision based on their danger of a priori determination…

Dipti Nalin Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 17(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3274/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M Balaganeshdipti Nalin Parikh, Crescent Bay T4 Apt. 3103-3104, Near, Parel Bhoiwada, Opp. Cancer Society, Jeerabai Wadai Road, Parel (E), Mumbai-400012 Pan: Aabpp5053F ............ Appellant Vs. Ito-17(1)(4), 115, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sonia Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 54Section 54(1)

…liament meant by using the language of the statute. All other principles of construction are no more than guides assist the task of interpretation (Lord Hoffman in Macniven H.M. Inspector of Taxes v. Westmoreland Investments Ltd. [2001] 2 WLR 337 (HL); [2002] 255 ITR 612). It is further of particular importance to note that the courts must avoid the danger of a priori determination of the meaning of a provision based on their pre-determined notions of ideological structure or scheme into which the provision to be interpreted is somewhat fitted; they are not entitled to usurp legislative function under the disguis…

The Dy. DIT (Exemption), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Friends of Wwb India, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assesseee both are dismissed

ITA 1608/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…er's case [1936] AC 1 (HL); 19 TC 490, the House of Lords, in the year 2001, does not seem to consider it to be so, as seen from MacNiven (H. M. Inspector of Taxes) v. Westmorland Investments Ltd [2001] 1 All ER 865 at 877-878 ; [2001] 2 WLR 377, 389 ; [2002] 255 ITR 612 ; Lord Hoffmann observes : "In the Ramsay case [1982] AC 300 both Lord Wilberforce and Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, who gave the other principal speech, were careful to stress that the House was not departing from the principle in IRC v. Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1; [1935] All ER Rep. 259. There has nevertheless been a good deal of discussion…