Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mysore v Indo Mercantile Bank Ltd
decided 1959-02-23 (reporter citation not confirmed)19591 min read
The case in brief30-second read
- Facts
- The bank sought to set off business losses incurred in Cochin against its business profits in Travancore. The Revenue relied on the first proviso to S.24(1) of the Income-tax Act 1922.
- Issue
- Whether the proviso barred the set-off, and how a proviso is to be construed.
- Held
- The proviso applied only to set-off between heads of income and did not bar the set-off in computing business profits. The proper function of a proviso is to except or qualify something in the main enactment; it is not ordinarily read as an independent enacting clause.
- Principle
- A proviso qualifies the main provision and is construed in relation to it, not as a separate source of law.
Facts
- The bank sought to set off business losses incurred in Cochin against its business profits in Travancore. The Revenue relied on the first proviso to S.24(1) of the Income-tax Act 1922.
Issue
- Whether the proviso barred the set-off, and how a proviso is to be construed.
Held
- The proviso applied only to set-off between heads of income and did not bar the set-off in computing business profits. The proper function of a proviso is to except or qualify something in the main enactment; it is not ordinarily read as an independent enacting clause.
Cite this
Citation
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mysore v Indo Mercantile Bank Ltd decided 1959-02-23 (reporter citation not confirmed)Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134612/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.