Guwahati Court February 1969 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.K. Barooah, Vice-president
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-27-1969
K.C. Sen, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act', the following question has been posed for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is a charitable institution within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The relevant assessment years are 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64. The respondent, Shri P. K. Barooah, hereinafter called 'the assessee' is the vice-president of the Jorhat Races, an association of persons, chiefly engaged in horse-racing and similar equestrian activities. The association of persons declared and made a trust on March 4, 1959, by execution of a trust deed to which we shall refer to later. For the relevant years under appeal, theIncome-tax Officer assessed the surplus funds of the association amounting respectively to Rs. 13,716, Rs. 12,309 and Rs. 11,800 under Section 143(3) of the Act. In the pro...
Seth Kirorimal Adwani and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer, e Ward and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-17-1969
Sen, J. 1. Civil Rule No. 194/66 arises out of a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, whereby the petitioner has prayed that the respondents should be asked to cancel, recall or otherwise forbear from giving effect to the impugned notice dated the 14th March, 1966, issued by the respondent No. 1, Income-tax Officer, 'E' Ward, Gauhati, and/or why a writ in the natute of certiorari or a writ of like nature should not be issued and the impugned notice dated the 14th March, 1966, should not be set aside and quashed. 2. The petitioner made another prayer that the respondents should show cause why Section 297(2)(d)(ii) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') should not be declared and adjudged as null and void. This part of the prayer has been given up at the time of arguing the case and so we need not embark upon any discussion on this matter. 3. The petitioner's case is that he was a partner during the accounting year 1957-58 of two registered partners...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›