Guwahati Court February 1976 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. Maskara Tea Estate
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-26-1976
M.C. Pathak, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that a genuine firm of four partners as stated in the deed of partnership dated April 1, 1960, was in existence during the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64?'3. The facts necessary for the purpose of answering the above question of law may be briefly stated as follows : Three brothers, namely, Daluram Agarwalla, Onkarmall Agarwalla and Dwarikadas Agarwalla, owned a tea estate called Maskara Tea Estate and their shares in the tea estate respectively was 0-6-0, 0-6-0 and 0-4-0. Some time in 1940 Dwarikadas Agarwalla sold his 0-4-0 share to his brother, Onkarmall Agarwalla. Thus, on and from that sale, Daluram Agarwalla became the owner ...
Bhauram Jodhraj Properties (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, A ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-26-1976
PATHAK C.J. - This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal."Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the imposition of penalties by the Income-tax Officer under section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to assessment year 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 ?"The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows :The assessee filed returns of income for the three assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 on December 31, 1966, September 12, 1967, and September 27, 1968, respectively. Under the provisions of section 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee was required to pay self-assessment taxes on the basis of its return of income within thirty days from the date of submission of the returns. The assessee in the instant case filed to pay the taxes on the basis of self-assessment. So proceeding...
Bhauram Jodhraj Properties (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-26-1976
Pathak, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the imposition of penalties by the Income-tax Officer under Section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69?'3. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows : The asscssee filed returns of income for the three assessment years1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 on December 31, 1966, September 12, 1967, and September 27, 1968, respectively. Under the provisions of Section 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee was required to pay self-assessment taxes on the basis of its return of income within thirty days from the date of submission of the returns. The assessee in the instant case failed to pay the taxes on the basis of self-assessment. So proceeding...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Bijoy Kumar Khandelwal
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Pathak, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. 2. The following question of law has been referred: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing that house property in question be valued on the rental method as contrasted with land and building method ?' 3. The facts relevant for answering the above question of law may be briefly stated as under: The deceased owned a house at Hospital Road, Silchar, which is a two-storeyed building, standing on a plot of land measuring 10,350 sq. ft. The plinth area of the building is 6,040 sq. ft. The ground floor was let out to Silchar Automobiles, a partnership firm in which the deceased was interested holding one-third share, on a rent of Rs. 200 per month. The first floor was used for the residence of the deceased. This property cost the deceased Rs. 60,000. The Assistant Controller taking into account the type of construction, proximity to the commercial ...
Tubu Chetia Vs. the State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-04-1976
Baharul Islam, J.1. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur. The appeal is from jail.2. The facts of the case are as follows:- On 17-6-1970 a first information report was lodged at Pengari Police Out-Post and it was sent to, and received at, Digboi Police Station on 18-6-1970. It was stated in that first information report that on that day, namely 17-6-1970, the appellant caused the death of his wife and a minor son, in his own house after closing the door from inside. The police registered a case and after investigation, submitted a charge-sheet under Sec, 302, I, P. C. Eventually he was committed to the Court of Session where also the charge under Section 302 was maintained. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. His plea was one of insanity at the relevant time.3. Dr. H. N. Ganguli who held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the child, was examined before the committing Magistrate, and his evidence...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›