Guwahati Court January 1994 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. Sankarlal Goenka
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-10-1994
Sharma, J. 1. On a prayer of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred to this court by the learned Tribunal under Sub-section (1) of Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by order dated September5, 1987, passed in Case No. R. A. 174/(Gau) of 1986. The reference arises out of the order of the learned Tribunal passed in Appeal No. I. T. A. 162/ (Gau) of 1985 for the assessment year 1978-79. The question is as follows : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that as the return is filed within the same time allowed under Section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, carry forward of loss has to be allowed as a matter of course under Section 72(1) read with Section 80 of the said Act, even though the return was not filed within the time specified in Section 139(1) as mentioned in Section 139(3) of the Act ?' 2. Heard Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the Revenue and Dr. Saraf, learned counsel for the assessee. ...
iraboot Singh and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Manipur and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-04-1994
Sema, J. 1. A common question of law has been raised in these batches of writ petitions, and as such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, it may not be necessary to recite the facts. In these writ petitions amongst other, the power conferred upon the State Government by Section 14(2) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (Central Act 33 of 1968) (hereinafter the Act, has been assailed as unconstitutional and deserves to be struck down. It is for this question of law it has been placed before the Division Bench. 3. We have heard Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Y. Imo Singh learned Advocate General for theState, Mr. Th. Priyananda Singh and Mr. R.K. Sanajaoba Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents. 4. Section 14(2) of the Act reads as under :-- Section 14(2) 'The State Government shall have the power - (a) to allot any such land for the purpose of an indu...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Mahal Chand Pandia
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-03-1994
Manisana, Actg. C.J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, the following question has been referred by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short), in respect of the assessment years 1977-78 to 1980-81 ; ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax holding that both godown and residential units which formed part of the same holding would qualify for exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) ?' 2. The facts : The assessee, Mahal Chand Pandia, owned a house standing on the land under holding No. 95 of Ward No. 22, at Kharupetia belonging to him. He occupied a part of the house for business purposes (godown) and the remaining part as a residence. The assessee claimed that exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) should be for the entire unit comprising the residential unit and godown which constituted one building, The A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›