Guwahati Court May 1975 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.
Mahabir Prasad Kishanlal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-19-1975
Pathak, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following question of law as arising out of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in restoring the order of the Income-tax Officer by which he cancelled the renewal of registration granted to the assessee-firm, M/s. Mahabir Prasad Kishanlal & Co., for the assessment year 1955-56 ?' 2. The facts of the case are as follows : 3. The assessee-firm, M/s. Mahabir Prasad Kishaalal & Co., consists of eight partners out of which three are minors. The minors have entered into the partnership through their fathers. The assessee-firm was granted registration on the basis of the partnership deed dated April 1, 1952, under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1922 Act'). Thereafter, the registration was renewed for the year 1955-56, the relevant assessment ...
Pranavi Ram Baruva (No. 2) Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-15-1975
Pathak, C.J. 1. By this application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the accountable person, petitioner, has challenged the orderof penalty passed by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Dibrugarh, under Section 73(5) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, read with Section 46(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. The facts of the case are stated in detail in Civil Rule No. 119 of 1971 (Pranavi Ram Baruva v. Asst. Controller of Estate Duty ), in which we have delivered our judgment just now. The impugned penalty order actually arises out of the assessment proceedings under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and in Civil Rule No. 119 of 1971 (Pranavi Ram Baruva v. Asst. Controller of Estate Duty), we have quashed the rectified assessment order under Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act passed by the Appellate Conttroller on November 14, 1969. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Dibrugarh, issued notice No. P-29/D/2420 dated 22/23-1-71, for paying a sum of Rs. 1,05,174.90, a...
Pranavi Ram Baruva (No. 1) Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-15-1975
Pathak, C.J. 1. This application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the rectification order dated November 14, 1969, passed by the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, Eastern Zone, Calcutta, under Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. 2. The facts of the case are as follows. One Parvati Prasad Baruva died intestate on June 7, 1964, leaving certain properties. The accountable person, that is the petitioner in this case, submitted account of the estate of the deceased showing a net value of Rs. 5,02,075.73 subject to reduction for tax liability. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty determined the value of the estate under the Act at Rs. 17,05,116 and, accordingly, assessment was made on July 28, 1966, under Section 58(3) of the Act and demand notice and challan were issued accordingly. Thereafter, the accountable person preferred an appeal before the Appellate Controller under Section 62 of the Act. The ap...
Phulchand Ratanlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-14-1975
Pathak, C.J. 1. The following question of law has been referred for decision under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessments could not be made in the status of a firm as claimed by the assessee and in setting aside the orders made by the Income-tax Officer and directing him to make assessments afresh in the correct status ?'2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. The relevant assessment years are 1961-62 and 1962-63. Pulchand Sarawgi has two sons, namely Ratanlal and Dulichand. Up to 1959-60 the return was filed by Pulchand in the status of Hindu undivided family wherein the three members were shown constituting the family with Pulchand Jain, the father, as the karta of the same. According to the assessee, M/s. Pulchand Ratanlal, Ratanlal Jain, one of the two sons of Pulchand Jain Sarawgi, was given in adoption to one, Balc...
Steelsworth (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-07-1975
Pathak, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the following question of law has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the development rebate of Rs. 12,319 was wrongly allowed by the Income-tax Officer, and the Income-tax Officer was justified in withdrawing the same ?'2. The facts of the case, as appear from the statement of the case, are as follows : The assessee is a private limited company. In the accounting year that is, the financial year 1965-66, the assessee had installed machineries, the cost of which came to Rs. 1,32,010. A development rebate amounting to 20% of the same, that is, Rs. 26,402, was allowed by the Income-tax Officer in the assessment. The reserve created by the assessee was also to the extent of Rs. 26,402. It was created by debiting the profit and loss account. The Income-tax Officer subsequently not...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ahmed Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-01-1975
Baharul Islam, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur and Tripura, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench 'B' (hereinafter merely 'Tribunal'), has referred, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the Act') the following question to us :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coining to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 23 A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were not attracted in the instant case, after taking into account the capital expenditure incurred by the company and its tax liability as also the fact that the assessee had declared a dividend of Rs. 12,000 in September, 1958 (the period falling beyond 12 months from the end of the previous year) ?'2. The facts related to the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58. The relevant and undisputed facts may be briefly stated :The assessee is a private limited company in which th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur and TripurA. Vs. ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: May-01-1975
BAHARUL ISLAM J. - At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur and Tripura, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench "B" (hereinafter merely "Tribunal"), has referred, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called "the Act") the following question to us :"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were not attracted in the instance case, after taking into account the capital expenditure incurred by the company and its tax liability as also the fact that the assessee had declared a dividend of Rs. 12,000 in September, 1958 (the period falling beyond 12 months from the end of the previous year) ?"The facts related to the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58. The relevant and undisputed facts may be briefly stated :The assessee is a p...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›