Residence in tax law means human dwelling, not a company's business occupation, so the exemption was denied.

The proviso to section 9(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was held to use "residence" in its ordinary sense as a human dwelling, where a person and family or servants live with some permanence. Although a company may "reside" in a broader business sense in other contexts, that extended meaning was not applicable here. The addition of the word "own" reinforced that the provision contemplated personal habitation, not occupation by a company for business or organisational use. The company therefore could not claim the proviso's benefit, and the issue was answered against it.

---

---

Issues: Whether a company can claim the benefit of the proviso to section 9(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 on the footing that the property occupied by it is in its occupation for the purpose of its own residence.

Analysis: The expression "residence" was held to bear its simple and ordinary meaning, namely the place where a human being eats, drinks and sleeps, or where his family or servants do so with some permanence. Although a company may be said to "reside" in an extended sense where it carries on business, that extended meaning was confined to provisions dealing with business residence and was not warranted in the proviso to section 9(2). The insertion of the word "own" before "residence" was treated as indicating a human dwelling and not a fictional person such as a company.

Conclusion: The company was not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to section 9(2), and the question was answered in the negative, in favour of Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: The word "residence" in the proviso to section 9(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 denotes a human dwelling in its ordinary sense and does not extend to a company occupying property for its business or organisational purposes.

---