Guwahati Court September 1989 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.
Saligram and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-28-1989
A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. This reference is made at the instance of a partnership firm run in the name and style of Saligram and Co. at Dibrugarh. The subject-matter of the reference is a two-storeyed house at Mancotta Road of Dibrugarh town purchased by the firm in 1968 for business purposes. The house property of the firm is in two floors and measures in each floor 3,388 square feet. The first floor is occupied by two partners of the firm for residential purposes. The second floor is let out to two sister concerns, Saligram Premsukh and Co. and Saligram and Co. (P.) Ltd., who paid a rent of Rs. 6,000. 2. The Income-tax Officer, in the assessment order for 1973-74, added Rs. 12,000 rent as regards the first floor and Rs. 6,000 for the second floor as income of the firm. The firm disputed the amount of Rs. 12,000 but did not dispute the rent of Rs. 6,000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on appeal, confirmed the order of the ITO. On further appeal, the Tribunal remitted the subject-ma...
R.G.S. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-27-1989
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law to this court for its opinion : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 37,500 under an agreement dated July 1, 1976, was an admissible deduction in computing the income of the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1976-77 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and upon a reading of the agreement dated July 1, 1975, the Tribunal was justified both in law and in fact in holding that the payment of Rs. 37,500 was part and parcel of the whole transaction for the acquisition of a capital asset of an enduring nature and was not related to the carrying on or the conduct of the business ?' 2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1976-77. The relevant previous year is the calendar year 1975.3. The assessee is a partnership firm. It was constituted by a dee...
Santokh Singh Vs. Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Shillong and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-26-1989
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. This writ petition raises many issues of vital importance to a vast majority of the citizens and relate to the working of the telecom Department of the Government of India in the matter of complaints regarding excessive and inflated bills on account of local calls at S.T.D. stations, arbitrary rejection of the complaints, disconnection of the telephones, denial of the various safeguards granted to the subscribers under the rules and certain other allied issues. 2. The petitioner Sardar Santokh Singh is a permanent resident of Shillong. He has also a small business in Police Bazar. He has two telephone connections -- one at his residence (No, 26711) and another at his shop (No. 23711). These two telephones he was having for more than last 20 years. He used to get the telephone bills on account of rental, call charges, trunk calls etc. in respect of the said telephone connections which were paid regularly. On one or two occasions when he received bills which were ex...
income-tax Officer Vs. Bezbaruah Tea Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-26-1989
Per Shri Egbert Singh, A.M. - The appeals are by the revenue and the cross-objections have been filed by the assessee. All relate to the same facts and the points involved also are identical. Hence, we consolidate the appeals and cross-objection for disposal by this common order.2. The common point of appeal by the revenue is that the CIT (A) erred in directing the assessing officer to charge tax on the assessee at rates applicable to an industrial company. For the assessment year 1982-83, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) in the status of a company. The ITO noted that it was assessed as a "non-industrial rate". The income was shown at Rs. 71,600. The ITO computed the income after disallowing some expenses. After considering the depreciation, the amount came to Rs. 1,78,883. 40% thereof came to Rs. 71,553. In addition to a taxable item of Rs. 50, the amount was assessed at Rs. 71,600. There was no further discussion.3. The assessee took up the matter before t...
Ajijur Rahman Barbhuiya Vs. Haji Moshaid Ali Laskar and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-25-1989
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. These two second appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree passed by the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Cachar at Silchar in Title Appeals Nos. 22/1975 and 24/1975. The said two appeals were also directed against the common judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff No. 2, Silchar in Title Suit No. 77 of 1973. 2. The question of law involved in these appeals relates to the right of pre-emption under the Mahomedan Law. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit for preemption against the defendants. His case was the suit land belonged jointly to Musstt. Lalbi Bibi (defendant No. 7), Md. Mantaz Ali (defendant No. 8) and the plaintiff and the same was also jointly possessed by them. All of them belong to Mahomedan community and under the Mahomedan Law, they have right of pre-emption. On 3-6-72, the defendants Nos. 7 and 8, without the knowledge of the plaintiff, sold the suit land for Rs. 2,000/-to six persons (defendants Nos. 1 to 6). On 14-4-73 at about 10 a.m., while t...
Abdul MatIn and ors. Vs. Abdul Aziz and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-25-1989
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kamrup in Title Appeal No. 13 of 1978 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati dismissing the suit with costs. 2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows. One Abdul Gafur owned 4 kathas of land. After his death, the land was amicably partitioned by his heirs in or about the year 1937. On partition, his two daughters namely, Salimon Nessa and Halimon Nessa got 1 K-3'Ls of land. Halimon Nessa sold away her half share in the said land to her sister Salimon Nessa by registered sale deed on 24-1-40. Salimon Nessa thus became absolute owner of IK-3Ls of land on and after the said sale on 24-1-40. Halimon Nessa died sometime in 1951 leaving behind her son, the plaintiff Abdul Matin as her sole heir. Later in 1953, Salimon Nessa also died without any issue leaving behind her hu...
Bajrang Tea Manufacturing Company (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Assam Stat ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-25-1989
A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. The subject-matter in this group of cases is the tariff imposed on consumption of electricity in Assam. The generation and supply of electricity in the State is regulated by two Central enactments -- one is called the Indian Electricity Act 9 of 1910 and the other is the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act 54 of 1948. There is also one State enactment called The Assam Electricity Duty Act, 1964 which covers the tariff. In all the States of India Electricity Boards are Constituted under Section 5 of the Act 34 of 1948. The Board in Assam is called the Assam State Electricity Board (the Board) With a Chairman as its administrative head. The Board in Assam has the capacity togenerate 500 MW but as on today generates only 220 MW in six Units but there are some Units out of the six are sick Units. The Kathalguri Unit generates energy by natural gas, Chandrapur, Galeky, Bongaigaon, Namrup, Lakwa Units generate energy by coal. 2. The demand for energy in Assam is 350 MW. Th...
Gopesh Chandra Das Vs. the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-25-1989
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,715/- by way of compensation on account of damage caused to his vehicle while it was under requisition with the officers of the Government of Assam for election duty. In the suit, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam was named as defendant No. 1, besides the Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Officer (Election Branch), Barpeta who requisitioned the vehicle, the Chief Election Officer, Assam, the Election Officer, Barpeta for whose duty it was requisitioned and the New India Assurance Company Limited with whom the vehicle was insured. They were made defendants Nos. 2 to 5. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff through his Advocate served a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam and other defendants. 2. The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in their written statement pleaded, inter alia, that the suit w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jhabarmal Agarwalla
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-22-1989
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, has referred the following question of law for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provision of Section 2(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the share income of the assessee's wife from Mannalal Jhabarmal is not includible in the hands of the assessee individual under Section 64(iii) ?'2. There appears to be some mistake in the question as, in view of the facts of the case, the relevant section should be Section 64(1)(i) and not Section 64(iii), We shall, therefore, read Section 64(1)(i) in place of Section 64(iii).3. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows. There was a partnership firm named Mannalal Jhabarmal. In the said firm, while the assessee, Jhabarmal Agarwalla, was a partner in a representative capacity as karta...
Sonai River Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-20-1989
A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. This reference is made under the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, a tea company called Sonai River Tea Company Ltd. The assessee for the assessment year 1975-76 returned an income of Rs. 72,288. The Income-tax Officer, after inquiry, varied the amount and held that the income was Rs. 3,05,735. The assessee successfully appealed. The assessment order was set aside. The Income-tax Officer was ordered to reframe the order. The assessee filed a further appeal against the order of remand as the assessee sought annulment of the Income-tax Officer's order. The Tribunal followed a decision in I.T.A. No. 211(Gauhati) of 1976-77 relating to Mahatta Construction Company, Tezpur, and dismissed the appeal. Thereupon, the following four questions are referred to this court at the instance of the assessee. The questions read as under : '1. Whether the provisions of Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are procedural or substantive ? 2. Even if it be c...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »