Search - 深圳居住证 办理条件 最新政策

In construing a penal section there is the unimpeachable authority of Lord Esher in Tuck & Sons v Priester (1887), 19 QBD 629, to the effect that if the words of a penal section are capable of an interpretation that would, and one that would not, inflict the penalty, the latter must prevail. ...

It deals primarily in lines of equipment manufactured by Deere & Co., an American corporation. ...

Attorney General [11] where it was said that trusts for political purposes: include, inter alia, trusts of which a direct and principal purpose is either — (I) to further the interests of a particular political party; or (ii) to procure changes in the laws of this country; or (iii) to procure changes in the laws of a foreign country; or (iv) to procure a reversal of government policy or of particular decisions of governmental authorities in this country; or (v) to procure a reversal of government policy or of particular decisions of governmental authorities in a foreign country. ...

As to whether the award of damages is properly to be regarded as profit from business for purposes of sections 3 and 9(1) of the Income Tax Act, I am of the view that the rule stated by Diplock, LJ, as he then was, in London & Thames Haven Oil Wharves, Ltd v Attwooll, [1967] 2 All ER 124 at 134 ff, is to be applied. ...

It is to be noted that, having purchased the heater for $197, the appellant used it as a source of profit by parting with possession of it to a customer for a net rental of $2.50 or $2.99 per month and that, in addition to parting with possession of the heater during that period, to earn that rental, the appellant had to incur certain expenses, namely, (a) it had to install the heater at the beginning of each lease, which involved, in 1966, labour $27.05 wiring (labour & material) 22.45 material 14.90 transportation 12.00 Hydro inspection 3.00 overhead and profit 5.60 $85.00 and, in 1967, similar amounts totalling $100; (b) it had to service the heaters during the term of the lease; (c) it had to remove the heater at the end of the lease; and (d) it had, in certain cases, to pay the manufacturer either $28 or $36 for reconditioning the heater between leases. ...

.: — This appeal was heard together with the appeal in Court File No. ...

.] — per Lord Diplock, at page 326 The Abbot v. Philbin judgment was in no way put in question. ...

The second method of distinguishing Graham is the classical one — on the facts. ...

.: — This appeal raises the same issues of law as are raised in Court File No. ...

& P.E.I.R. 168, 211 A.P.R. 168 (P.E.I.C.A.) The principles were in our view best summarized by Lord Griffiths, speaking for the majority, in Ketteman v. ...