Guwahati Court November 1980 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. Buildwell Assam (P.) Ltd.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-11-1980
Lahtri, J. 1. The ITO assessed the taxpayer, a private limited company. The assessee had claimed before him that it was entitled to certain deductions under Chap. VI-A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The ITO partly allowed rebates/deductions under Sections 80I and 80J but disallowed deduction under Section 80G of ' the Act ' in its entirety. The assessee appealed against the order of disallowance of the deductions under Section 80G and the method of computation adopted in granting deductions under Section 80J. No other point was taken. However, at the hearing, the latter ground was not pressed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, hereinafter referred as ' the AAC' rejected the line of reasoning of the ITO and and concluded: '......theclaim for deduction under Section 80G(1) cannot be completely disallowed.' 2. Though the assessee did not complain against deductions under Section 80I and 80J of the Act, the AAC made the following observations thereto and fashioned the final orders thus : 'Th...
District Food Inspector Vs. Kedarnath Chirania
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-10-1980
K.N. Saikia, J.1. This appeal is from Judgment and Order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sibsagar acquitting the accused-respondent of charge under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The District Food Inspector, Sibsagar, Jorhat collected sample of Coriander (Dhania) Powder from the accused's Mill, namely, Chirania Flour Mill, on 16-3-72 and caused it to be analysed by the Public Analyst, who reported it to be adulterated; and after proper sanction, the accused-respondent was prosecuted; and charged under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter 'the Act'). After framing of charge the accused's sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory which also reported it to be adulterated. At trial the complainant was cross-examined and two more prosecution witnesses examined. The accused examined himself in defence. The trial Court found uncontroverted that the sample of Coriander (Dhania) powder was properly collected, an...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›