https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13984 The court considered whether a jeep owned by a company should be treated as a motor car under section 40(3)(vii) of the Finance Act, 1983. The term "jeep" was defined as a small sturdy motor vehicle with four-wheel drive, supporting its classification as a motor car. Analyzing the term "motor car," the court concluded that it encompasses vehicles used for carrying passengers. The court interpreted the provision in line with legislative intent and parliamentary speeches, determining that the term "motor car" in the Act covers all motor vehicles except heavy vehicles. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitions as no referable question of law arose. en-us Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13984 The court considered whether a jeep owned by a company should be treated as a motor car under section 40(3)(vii) of the Finance Act, 1983. The term "jeep" was defined as a small sturdy motor vehicle with four-wheel drive, supporting its classification as a motor car. Analyzing the term "motor car," the court concluded that it encompasses vehicles used for carrying passengers. The court interpreted the provision in line with legislative intent and parliamentary speeches, determining that the term "motor car" in the Act covers all motor vehicles except heavy vehicles. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitions as no referable question of law arose. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13984