Guwahati Court March 1990 Judgments

Ka Krom Rapsang Vs. Wealth-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in: (1990)34ITD316(Gau.)

1. The appeals are by the assessee which are directed against the consolidated orders of the CWT(A) by which he has sustained the penalty imposed under Section 18(1)(c) of the W.T. Act for the above years and under Section 1.8(1) (a) for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85.2. We shall first take up the appeal for the assessment year 1979-80.The WTO noted that the assessee in her wealth-tax return did not disclose certain house properties at Shillong and certain properties at Cantonment area. The assessee disclosed the ownership of land at Cantonment area but the value was shown at Nil. According to the assessee, the land in the Cantonment area was a leasehold land under the cantonment authority, i.e., Defence Department and that there was a stipulation by the defence authority that they may require the land at any time and the assessee has to release the same without compensation.One property is located at Jaiaw which the WTO found that the assessee had not disclosed the same on ...

The State of Assam Vs. Sri Ajit Singh Bothra and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B.P. Saraf, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the accused persons by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Gauhati in Case No. 230 C of 1981. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 27-1-81 the Sub-Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies, Gauhati visited the firm known as Ajitsingh Bothra and Sons and seized 109 bags of sugar on the ground that it was dealing in sugar without a licence as required under the provisions of Assam Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'licensing order'). The partners of the said firm were charged with the commission of offence under Section 7(1)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. The charge was denied by the accused. The defence case was that the licence was issued to the firm under the licensing order as back as in 1967 and the same was renewed from year to year till 1979. Application had been filed for renewal of the licence for the year 1980 and the original licence was also attached with t...

Suraj Mal Tewari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

R.K. Manisana, J. 1. This revision petition arises from the decree passed by the Assistant District Judge (1) Cachar in MS No. 1 of 83 allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Sadar Munsiff (2) Silchar in Money Suit No. 259 of 1980. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2767.53 against railway authority as compensation for short delivery of 104 handloom saries. On 30-9-77, 107 handloom saries were booked from Man Railway Junction to Silchar Railway Station. Out of 107 saries railway delivered only 3 saries to the plaintiff and 104 saries were not delivered. Compensation was preferred in writing by the plaintiff on 7-10-80. 3. The only question for consideration in this case is whether compensation was preferred beyond the time prescribed under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act, and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. 4. Mr. S. K. Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the limitation under S...