Guwahati Court June 1976 Judgments

N. R. Sirker Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam.

Court: Guwahati

PATHAK C.J. - The following questions of law have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amounts receivable by the assessee on account of transfer of contracts to third parties were revenue receipts taxable in the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount receivable under agreements dated October 1, 1963, and September 30, 1963, accrued to the assessee on the dates of contracts and not on the dates when the instalments became payable under the agreements ?' The statement of the case disclose the following facts :The assessee is an individual. The dispute relates to the assessment ye...

N.R. Sirker Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Guwahati

Pathak, C.J. 1. The following questions of law have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal '), to the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amounts receivable by the asses-see on account of transfer of contracts to third parties were revenue receipts taxable in the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount receivable under agreements dated October 1, 1963, and September 30, 1963, accrued to the asses-see on the dates of contracts and not on the dates when the instalments became payable under the agreements ?' 2. The statement of the case discloses the following facts :The assessee is an individual. The dispute relates to the ass...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gajanand Shyamlal

Court: Guwahati

Pathak, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench (hereinafter deferred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred tha following question of law to the High Court 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 Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the order of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ?' 2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows: The assessment year involved is 1963-64 and the previous year concerned is 2019 R.N. The assessee filed its return of income on September27, 1963, declaring an income of Rs. 33,321. On January 29, 1964, the assessee filed a revised return showing an income of Rs. 37,560. The Income-tax Officer computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,84,241 after making additions on account of various hundi loans and cash credits appearing in its books and the...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Golaprai Hoonlal and Co.

Court: Guwahati

Rangarajan, J.1. The question referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, is as follows : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelling the penalty order of the Income-tax Officer under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 1962-63, on the ground that there is vagueness in the penalty order of the Income-tax Officer and so the order cannot be said to be a legal and speaking order?'2. A penalty of Rs. 16,120 had been levied by the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Digboi (Shri G.N. Hazarika) by his order dated March 16, 1969, under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the assessee, which is a registered firm, in respect of the assessment year 1962-63 in the following circumstances: The concerned income-tax return had been filed on De...

Kashiram Saraf, Saraf Motor Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Et ...

Court: Guwahati

Sarma, J. 1. After disposal of the I.T.A. No. 47 (Gau) of 1971-72, the Tribunal, Gauhati, has made this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee to answer a question of law said to have arisen out of its order passed in the said appeal. The question is as below : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, can be imposed in spite of the filing of the return within the time allowed under Section 139(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961, taking into considerationthe decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. : [1970]77ITR518(SC) ?' 2. The assessee is a partner in a firm known as M/s. Saraf Motor Company. He filed his I.T. return relating to the assessment year 1962-63, on April 20, 1965. The return should have been filed in June, 1962. Even after issue of ...

Kashiram Saraf, Saraf Motor Company, Gauhati Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...

Court: Guwahati

SARMA J. - After disposal of the I.T.A. No. 47 (gau) of 1971-72, the Tribunal Gauhati, has made this reference under s. 256 (1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), at the instance of the assessee to answer a question of law said to have arisen out of its order passed in the said appeal. The question is as below :"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, can be imposed in spite of the filing of the return within the time allowed under s. 139(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961, taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. : [1970]77ITR518(SC) ?"The assessee is a partner in a firm known as M/s. Saraf Motor Company. He filed his I.T. return relating to the assessment year 1962-63, on April 20, 1965. The return should have been filed in June, 1962. Even after issue of no...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kamalpur (Assam) Tea Estate (P.) Ltd.

Court: Guwahati

Pathak, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred to the High Court the following question of law 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 Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee will be entitled to development rebate to the extent of Rs. 15,913 for the assessment year 1963-64 ?'2. The facts leading to the question of law may briefly be stated as follows:3. The relevant assessment year is 1963-64. The assessee purchased a dryer as per bill dated August 14, 1961, and the actual cost came to Rs. 1,03,095. The accounting period of the assessee is the calendar year and in the assessment year 1962-63, the total income of the assessee was calculated at Rs. 4,706 and he has shown the net profit as per profit and loss account at Rs. 5,065. The assessee calculated the development rebate allowable fo...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Etc. Vs. Assam Travels Shipping Service

Court: Guwahati

Pathak, C.J.1. By a common judgment the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, hereinafter referred to as ' the Tribunal ', disposed of I.T.As. Nos. III (Gauhati) and 112 (Gauhati) of 1971-72, relating to penalties in assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. There were two reference petitions and the Tribunal has referred the following common question oflaw to the High Court 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 Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelling the penalty orders of the Income-tax Officer under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65, on the ground that the penalty orders were illegal and not according to law '2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows: In the assessment year 1963-64, the Income-tax Officer found that t...

Joy Chandra Borkotoki Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1977CriLJ101

1. This is an application under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter called the 'new Code') and is directed against an order passed by the Sessions Judge at Jorhat in Criminal Motion No. 13 (3)/74.2. At the outset, Shri C, R. De, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Assam, raised a preliminary objection. His submission is that against the same impugned order of the Magistrate, the petitioner made an application before the Sessions Judge in revision and therefore a second application in revision before the High Court is barred in law.3. In the Criminal case pending before the Magistrate, the prosecution made an application to record the evidence of the hand-writing expert on commission. The Magistrate allowed the Application by his order dated 20-7-1974. Against that order the accused-petitioner made an application before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge held that in view of Section 397(2), the application before him was incompetent inasmuch as it wa...

Joy Chandra Borkotoki Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 1977CriLJ101

ORDERBaharul Islam, J.1. This is an application under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter called the 'new Code') and is directed against an order passed by the Sessions Judge at Jorhat in Criminal Motion No. 13 (3)/74.2. At the outset, Shri C, R. De, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Assam, raised a preliminary objection. His submission is that against the same impugned order of the Magistrate, the petitioner made an application before the Sessions Judge in revision and therefore a second application in revision before the High Court is barred in law.3. In the Criminal case pending before the Magistrate, the prosecution made an application to record the evidence of the hand-writing expert on commission. The Magistrate allowed the Application by his order dated 20-7-1974. Against that order the accused-petitioner made an application before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge held that in view of Section 397(2), the application before him was incompe...