Guwahati Court August 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.
Chandrika Prosad Rai Vs. the State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-27-1975
Baharul Islam J.1. This is an application in revision by the petitioner, who was convicted by a first class Magistrate (Judicial), Gauhati, under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called 'the Act) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more. On appeal by the petitioner, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Magist- rate was upheld by the Sessions Judge, Kam-rup. fifcgice this petition.2. The prosecution case is that the District Food Inspector, Soba Prasad Sarrna, visited Kapurba Restaurant at Bamuiiimaidan and purchased 600 grams of 'Bundia' (sweet) from the petitioner (who gave his name as 'Madhusudnan Rai', which was actually his-father's name). The article was divided info 3 parts and each part was put in a container and one part was sent to the Public Analyst for chemical examination and another part i...
Deechand Sarda Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-19-1975
1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25-7-70 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs and the order dated 7-12-1972 passed by the Government of India in revision application under the Customs Act, 1962.2, The petitioner is a cloth Merchant having his business under the name and style of 'M/s, Sardar & Co.' situated at Silchar town. The Customs Preventive Officers seized five pieces of cloth measuring 23.05 metres under Case No. 17/CL/Imp/Prev./Sil/69, dated 9-6-69, vide T.R.S. No. 25 of Book No. 349, dated 9-6-69 and Inventory dated 9-6-69. The petitioner challenged that seizure and also by a statement dated 9-6-69 ex- plained to the Customs Preventive Officer the licit sources and the character of these goods. The petitioner was served by the Assistant Collector, Customs, with a show cause notice, being C. No. 50/CL/Sil/Cus/69/9299, dated 14/15-7-69 on the charges mentioned in the show cause memo and h...
Nandiram Boro and anr. Vs. Chandi Ram Boro and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-13-1975
Baharul Islam, J.1. This reference has been made by the Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Gauhati, and arises out of a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').2. In pursuance of an order passed by the Magistrate under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Code both the parties appeared and filed their written statements and affidavits. Each party claimed possession of the disputed land, The learned Magistrate made a reference to the Civil Court under Section 146 of the Code. The Civil Court returned the reference on the ground Unit the Magistrate had already given a finding on possession. Learned Magistrate then passed an order declaring possession of disputed Dag No. 2 in favour of the first party and Dag No. 47 in favour of the second party.3. The reference has been made on the ground that the learned Magistrate did not consider the written statements and affidavits filed by the parties and based the order on his knowledge derived from loc...
K.B. Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-11-1975
Pathak, C.J. 1. The following question of law has been referred in this reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that no appeal lies before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the charge of interest tinder Section 139 ?' 2. The assessee is a firm and in respect of the assessment year 1965-66, a return of income was filed on September 16, 1965. Later on it was found that this return had not been signed by a partner of the firm but had been signed, by an employee, who is the manager of the firm. Thereafter, a valid return was filed on December 19, 1968, and the assessment was completed on July 17, 1969. While completing the assessment the Income-tax Officer charged interest under the provisions of Section 139 as according to him the return had not been filed within the time allowed under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act...
Ladhuram Laxmi Narayan Vs. Income-tax Officer, Additional a Ward and o ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-08-1975
M.C. Pathak, C.J.1. By this application under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the notice dated March 10, 1971, issued to him under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Officer, respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner is a partnership-firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act having its head office at Gauhati. For the assessment year 1962-63, the petitioner filed a return showing its total income during the accounting year 1961-62, Ram Navami year 2018. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner in respect of the assessment year in question and it produced the books of accounts including the books of accounts of all its branches. The Income-tax Officer, thereafter, passed an order of assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 182(1) of the Act. The income of the firm was determined at Rs. 1,09,430 and the allocation of the shares of ...
Ladhuram Laxminarayan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-07-1975
Pathak, C.J. 1. The following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as ' the Act ' : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee firm had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is valid ' 2. The statement of the case discloses the following facts : The assessee is a partnership firm having seven partners during the accounting year, which is 2019 R.N. The names of the partners are-1. Ladhuram Ajitsaria 17%2. Madanlal Ajitsaria 12%3. K. P. Ajitsaria 12%4. Sitaram Ajitsaria 13%5. Laxminarayan Ajitsaria 16%6. Puranmal Ajitsaria 17%7. Dindayal Ajitsaria 13% 3. The firm was carrying on business in various miscellaneous articles with head office at Gauhati and branches at Tinsukia, Calcutta and Gauhati. The assessee-firm filed th...
ZiauddIn Ahmed Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-05-1975
Pathak, C.J 1. The following two questions cf law have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as arising out of the Tribunal's order in G.T.A. No. 7 (Gauhati) of 1968-69, dated April 24, 1972, under Section 26 of the Gift-tax Act: '(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, were attracted and that there was a deemed gift taxable in the hands of the assessee ? (2) Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that in considering the quantum of taxable gift under Section 4(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, the transfer of shares standing in the name of his minor son was not to be considered ?.' 2. The following facts appear from the statement of the case.3. The assessment year involved is 1960-61. The deceased-assessee, late A1-Haj J. Ahmed, owned 425 shares of Khanikar Tea Estate (P.) Ltd. in his own name. Hundred shares of the said company stood...
Assam Frontier Veneer and Saw Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-01-1975
D.M. Sen, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, on certain questions of law arising out of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order passed in I.T.As. Nos. 3238 (Gau) of 1969-70 and 3387 (Gau)of 1969-70. The questions of law that have been referred are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer was justified in imposing the penalty under Section 271(l)(a) of the Income-tax Act. 1961, ignoring the petition for extension of time filed by the assessee on April 24, 1964? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer was valid as the period of default and the quantification of the amount of penalty could be found from the order of the Income-tax Officer ?' 2. We have to state briefly the facts leading to this reference in order to appreciate ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›