https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273152 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. en-us Wed, 05 Dec 1934 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jun 2018 17:00:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273152 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 05 Dec 1934 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273152