Guwahati Court September 1988 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.
Khanikar Tea Estate (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-30-1988
A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court under Sub-section (1) of Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could be inferred that the assessee was carrying on business through the agency of the vendor and, therefore, the income from Dekhari Tea Estate accrued to the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71 ?'2. The assessee is Khanikar Tea Estate (P.) Ltd. On April 16, 1970, the assessee purchased a tea estate from Dekhari Tea Co. Ltd. a company incorporated in England with its registered office at 15, St. Helen's Place, Bishopsgate, London. The tea estate consisted of land of 1,858.85 acres of plantations, garden nursery, tea bushes, seedlings, standing tea crops, etc. The contract of sale was entered into on June 26, 1969, and under that contract, the assessee agreed to purchase the estate as a going concern from January 1, ...
Drupad Kumar Barua Vs. Assam State Trans. Corpn. and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
B.L. Hansaria, J.1. The appellant was involved in a motor accident on 5.10.1967. He was then aged about 31 years. On the ill-fated day he was travelling from Shillong to Guwahati by a bus belonging to the State Transport Department of the Government of Assam. The accident took place about 9 miles away from Guwahati. At that place there was a collision between the bus and a truck coming from opposite direction. In the accident the appellant suffered fractures of different bones including the neck of right femur and right fibula. The injuries were so grave that the appellant became permanently disabled. The accident has also affected his longevity. The great impact on the health of the appellant can be well imagined by the fact that though the accident took place on 5.10.1967 he could join his service only on 1.12.1973 which shows that for more than 6 years he could not regain sufficient strength to join his service which was of Claims Inspector under the Railways.2. The appellant claim...
Drupad Kumar Barua Vs. the Assam State Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
B.L. Hansaria, J.1. The appellant was involved in a motor accident on 5-10-67. He was then aged about 31 years on the ill-fated day he was travelling from Shillong to Guwahati by a bus belonging to the State Transport Department of the Government of Assam. The accident took place about 9 miles away from Guwahati. At that place there was a collision between the bus and a truck coming from opposite direction. In the accident the appellant suffered fractures of different bones including the neck of right femur and right fibula. The injuries were so grave that the appellant became permanently disabled. The accident has also affected his longevity. The great impact on the health of the appellant can be well imagined by the fact that though the accident took place on 5-10-67 he could join his service only on 1-12-73, which shows that for more than 6 years he could not regain sufficient strength to join his service, which was of claims Inspector under the Railways.2. The appellant claimed a ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahatta Construction Co.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-26-1988
A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court under Sub-section (1) of Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Sri Mohanlal Choudhuri, one of the partners of the assessee-firm, Mahatta Construction Co., Tezpur, was entitled to withdraw Rs. 50,000 from the capital account and to make giftof the same to Miss Anju Mahatta and that the gift was a valid one and the interest payment of Rs. 3,375 and Rs. 4,711 relating to this gifted amount for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, respectively, was an allowable deduction in the case of the assessee-firm ?' 2. The firm, Mahatta Construction Co., at Ketekibari at Tezpur, is the assessee in this case. The question relates to the assessment years 1970-71 and 1972. Mohanlal Choudhury, a partner of the firm, had a credit balance of Rs. 36,619.82. In the relevant year, the profit ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Assam Cold Storage Co.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-23-1988
A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income-tax Officer rejecting the declaration filed beyond the tine prescribed under Section 184(7) is an order made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 185(3) of the Act ?'.2. The Assam Cold Storage Co. at Tinsukia is a partnership firm. As a firm, under the Income-tax Act, 1961, annually the firm filed a declaration in Form No. 12. Relevant to the question in reference, the declaration was to be filed before October 16, 1971. The firm, instead filed it on November 15, 1971. On February 6, 1974, the firm explained that as one of the partners was bedridden due to cardiac trouble in the months of August to November, 1971, the delay occurred. The Income-tax Officer did not believe the explanation and stated that the declaration was signed on November 3, 1971, and was filed on Nov...
indrajit Chaliha Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-19-1988
A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred under Sub-section (1)of Section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the conversion of the sole proprietary business of Shri J.P. Chaliha, the deceased, into a partnership business styled 'Korangani and Azizbagh Tea Estate' by taking his wife and his sons as partners by allowing 1/4th share to each of the said partners by partnership deed dated August 2, 1962, amounts to a gift and thereby upholding the inclusion by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty of the entire difference between the market value and the book value of the assets of the firm, Korangani and Azizbagh Tea Estate, amounting to Rs. 6,45,459 dutiable as part of the estate of Shri J.P. Chaliha, the deceased, under Sections 5 and 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?' 2. The reference relates to the estate of Jadav Prasad Chaliha. He was a planter-manufacturer a...
Abinash Mahanta Vs. Jajneswar Mahanta
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-16-1988
S.N. Phukan, J.1. By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of two revision petitions registered as Criminal Revision Nos. 331/88 and 335/88. Fuels are as follows:Jajneswar Mahanta petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 335/88 is the landlord of the room in dispute and Abinash Manama, opposite party in the above Criminal Revision is his monthly tenant and he is running restaurant business. The tenant failed to pay rent from 1-7-86 and a lawyer's notice was served on the tenant. The landlord filed a petition before the learned Additional District Magistrate, Gauhati in October. 1987 alleging, inter alia, that the tenant tailed to pay the rent, closed the said restaurant for 2 months keeping the room under lock and key and left the place without any intimation to the landlord. Other allegations were made in the said petition regarding the conduct of the tenant and keeping all furniture, fixtures and utensils in the said room. On the basis of the said petition on 2-11-87, the...
Azizur Rahman Vs. Harun Rashid and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
J.M. Srivastava, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 20-2-85 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 2nd class Hailakandi whereby the petitioner's complaint was dismissed.2. The petitioner had earlier filed a complaint on the allegations that on 15-6-84 while he was collecting tolls in the market, settled with him the accused persons in a body armed with lethal weapons prevented the complainant from collecting tolls from the market and assaulted him, The learned Magistrate after enquiry, then had dismissed the complaint. The complainant then filed the present complaint and after hearing the parties the learned Magistrate by the impugned judgment and order held that in so far as the allegations are concerned the same were correct but that since the earlier complaint case No. 649/84 had been dismissed by order dated 23-6-84 the subsequent complaint could not be entertained. No exceptional circumstances were proved by the complainant which may warrant the enter...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Hari Mohan Ghosh
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-12-1988
J.M. Srivastava, J. 1. This appeal by the Union of India through the General Manager, N. F. Railway arises in the following circumstances. 2. The plaintiff respondent on 27-9-67 booked a consignment of artificial silk ready made garments in three packages at Sealdah on the Eastern Railway for carriage to Tangla on the N. F. Railway. The consignment was not delivered. The plaintiff suffered loss of Rs. 24,760.15 P. The plaintiff served notice and filed the suit on 3-6-69. The appellant defendants resisted the claim inter alia on the ground that the consignment comprised of 'silk' of a value of more than Rs. 500/-, but was not so declared and the required percentage under Section 77B of the Indian Railways Act (hereinafter the Act) was not paid and hence the defendants were not liable and that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for loss of profits. 3. The following issues were framed : -- 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 2. Whether the plaintiff has ...
Ram Naresh Kanoo and anr. Vs. Sardar Harjashbir Singh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-09-1988
R.K. Manisana, J. 1. This revision petition arises from an order dt. 14-3-88 passed by the learned Sub Judge (I) setting aside the order of dismissal of Original Suit No. 39/85/13/88 for default of plaintiffs' appearance. 2. The suit was instituted by seven (7)plaintiffs against four (4) defendants. The suit was dismissed on 23-6-87 for default of plaintiffs' appearance. Thereafter an application was filed for setting aside the order of dismissal. Defendants 1 and 3 received the notice of the application for restoration of the suit. It is slated at the Bar that the defendant 4 did not receive the notice. There is also no service report whether the summons on defendant 4 has been served or riot. As regards the defendant 2, the service report of the process server, is that the summons on defendant 2 could not be served as he died about a year ago. The report is dt. 18-4-88. The admitted position is that the defendant 2 Bharat Prasad Gupta died on 17-10-86 and that no legal heir or lega...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »