Guwahati Court January 1995 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Naginimara Veneer and Saw Mills (P.) Lt ...

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Baruah, J.1. The following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act at the instance of the Department ; 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of loss to the assessee although the assessee failed to file the return within the time prescribed under Section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. To answer the reference, it is necessary to narrate the short facts of the case.3. The Assessing Officer mentioned in the assessment order that the total loss was computed at Rs. 2,23,087. He mentioned that the loss computed was not allowed to be carried forward as the assessee did not file the return within the time prescribed under Section 139(3). The assessee took up the matter before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Pres...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Union Flour Mills

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Baruah, J. 1. The following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation of a registered firm which could not be set-off fully in the assessments of partners for the same assessment year should be brought back in the subsequent assessment of the registered firm for the purpose of setting off the same against the business income of the firm for that subsequent assessment year ?' 2. For the assessment year 1980-81, assessment was made on the assessee as a registered firm under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The computation was done on the basis of the loss as per the profit and loss account. The Income-tax Officer allowed unabs...

Mustt. Sabira Khatun Vs. Mustt. Syeda Fatema Khatoon

Court: Guwahati

A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 100 read with Order 42, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. by the appellant-defendant against the judgment dated 10-6-1985 of the learned District. Judgc, Nagaon in T.A. No.4/84. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed TS No. 14/80 in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge, No. I, Nagaon for specific enforcement of contract for sale of land in respect of an area measuring 1K 4L covered by Dag No. 1843 in PP No. 1134 of Nagaon Town. The Plaintiff's case in the said suit was that on 16-6-1979, the defendant executed a 'Baina-nama' agreeing to sell the aforesaid land within 9 months for a total consideration of Rs. 20,000/-, of which Rs. 5,000/- was received by the defendant on 16-6-1979 'and the balance amount of Rs. 15.000/- was to be paid by the Plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale deed. Thereafter, the plaintiff offered to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 15,000/-seve...

Ram Nagina Roy and ors. Vs. Mohabir Kanu

Court: Guwahati

M. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has arisen against the order dated 14-10-88 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Silchar in Complaint Case No. 2302C of 1987 allowing the prosecution to recall witness/evidence for addition of Section 420, IPC as charge, after completion of evidence.2. The complainant opposite party took a loan of Rs. 4000/- from the accused persons in the month of Baishak. 1391 BS by signing on three Revenue Stamps affixed on a blank sheet of paper in presence of witnesses and handed over possession of a plot of paddy land measuring one Kedar as interest. The complainant, as claimed, returned the full amount in the month of Falguna, 1393 BS in presence of witnesses but when the complainant asked the petitioner No. 1 to return the signed blank sheets the petitioner No. 1 told that his son, petitioner No. 2 had gone to UP and the relevant papers would be returned only after his return from U.P. That the accused petitioner No. 1 delivered possession of...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Naginimara Veneer and Saw Mills (P.) Lt ...

Court: Guwahati

D. N. BARUAH, J. :The following question has been referred under s. 256(1) of the IT Act at the instance of the Department :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of loss to the assessee although the assessee failed to file the return within the time prescribed under s. 139(3) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. To answer the reference, it is necessary to narrate the short facts of the case.The Assessing Officer (AO) mentioned in the assessment order that the total loss was computed at Rs. 2,23,087. He mentioned that the loss computed was not allowed to be carried forward as the assessee did not file the return within the time prescribed under s. 139(1). The assessee took up the matter before the CIT(A), who, following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Presidency Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs . CIT : [1977]108ITR838(Cal) allowed the claim of the a...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Taramani Devi Jalan

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Baruah, J. 1. The following question, has been referred under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in modifying the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order directing the Wealth-tax Officer to follow certain decisions of the Special Bench of the Tribunal and the Division Bench of the High Court in effect goes against the ground taken by the appellant though the respondent has not raised any ground before the Tribunal either by tiling cross-object-ions or by an appeal ?' 2. An assessment was made against the assessee for the assessment year 1981-82 as an individual. The assessment was made under Section 16(3) of the Act. In addition to other properties, the assessee had interest in the firm which owned landed property also. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) in respect of such landed properties...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Naginimara Veneer and Saw Mills (P.) Lt ...

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Gau)354

D. N. BARUAH, J. :The following question has been referred under s. 256(1) of the IT Act at the instance of the Department :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of loss to the assessee although the assessee failed to file the return within the time prescribed under s. 139(3) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. To answer the reference, it is necessary to narrate the short facts of the case.The Assessing Officer (AO) mentioned in the assessment order that the total loss was computed at Rs. 2,23,087. He mentioned that the loss computed was not allowed to be carried forward as the assessee did not file the return within the time prescribed under s. 139(1). The assessee took up the matter before the CIT(A), who, following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Presidency Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs . CIT : [1977]108ITR838(Cal) allowed the claim of the as...