Guwahati Court June 1996 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.
Meghraj Tusnial and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
D.N. Baruah, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following three questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee had automatically become liable to penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') (mens rea being taken for granted) by virtue of the provisions of Explanation 4 to that section, because in the view of the Tribunal 'the assessee did accept the findings given in the quantum matter in which the value of the properties had been correctly adopted' and 'it was for the assessee to prove that the returned wealth was correct ? 2. Whether the view taken by the Tribunal about the valuation of the properties having been correctly adopted in the assessment was legally right, especially when that view was in direct conflict with the obvious fact that neither the net wealth nor the minimum pe...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
S. Barman Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. None i s found on behalf of the respondent.2. This application has been filed by the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, NF Railway and the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, NF Railway, Maligaon for reviewing the order dated 31 -7-95 passed by this Court in Crl. Original Application No. 620/ 95, by which the prayer of Shri Babul Dey for anticipatory bail was turned down holding that offences contemplated under the provisions of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 are bailable and hence no such application under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail is maintainable in respect of the offences under the said Act.2A. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Railway authorities are finding it very difficult to deal with various offenders arrested in connection with various offences under the provisions of the Act. According to him, the...
Ampee Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-26-1996
D.N. Baruah, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following two questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short, 'the Act'), for opinion of this court : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in initiating the assessment proceeding for the assessment year 1988-89, on the basis of loss return submitted by the assessee on January 10, 1989, without any claim for carry forward loss and in not holding that the return so submitted was never to have been furnished in view of the provisions contained in Section 139(10) read without the proviso (d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in its interpretation of Sections 139(3) and 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was justified in law in holding that the A...
Tumda Saw and Veneer Mills, Tumpa, Arunachal Pradesh and anr., Etc. Et ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
D.N. Baruah, J. 1. I dispose of all the above Civil Rules by a common judgment and order as these involve common questions of law and similar facts.2. Petitioners in the above Civil Rules carry on business, inter alia, of manufacture and sale of veneer. Plywood factories are the sole customers of the veneer manufactured by the petitioners. Petitioners in the course of their business of sale of commercial veneer are, required to trarisport those from their factories by truck etc. to various places. For transportation of such veneer they are required to cross check gates in Assam, Naga-land, Arunachal Pradesh etc.3. Veneer is manufactured from logs. Trees felled in the forest are cut into pieces and tops are removed. These pieces of timber are called logs. The Forest Department measures these logs, enters the measurement in the log measurement book, collects the royalty as per the approved rate on those and thereafter releases the same by putting hammer marks to various contractors for ...
Amir HossaIn Alias Ali and ors. Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
N.G. Das, J.1. These two appeals (Criminal Appeal No. 9/84 and Criminal Appeal No. 15/1984) by six of the accused are directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala dated 19-4-1984 passed in Sessions Trial No. 67 (W.T/S) 1983 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under different Sections and passed sentences. There were 16 accused in the case, of whom 6 appellants were convicted and the remaining 10 were acquitted. I shall now refer which of the accused was convicted under which Section.2. All the appellants of these two appeals were convicted under Section 148 of IPC and they were sentenced thereunder to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to suffer a further period of 3 months. Appellant Amir Hossen was also convicted under Section 304, Part-II of IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer R.I. for 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which he...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bahadur Tea Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
D.N. Baruah, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred by the Income-tax Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), for opinion of this court : '(i) Whether the Tribunal did not err in facts as well as in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 27,760 and Rs. 21,824 being repairing expenses of the directors' bungalow and its furniture when the same expenses clearly come within the mischief of Sub-section (5) of Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal did not err in facts as well as in law in applying the ratio of the decision of CIT v. Parshva Properties Ltd : [1987]164ITR673(Cal) , when that decision was rendered in respect of the relevant provisions of Section 37(4), before the insertion of Sub-section (5) of Section 37 ?' 2. The assessee is a tea company carrying on business of tea plantation, manufacture and sale of tea. It owns a tea estate. In the tea estate, there is a ...
Dr. Nilkamal Bezbaruah Vs. Tila Devi Newar and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
V. Dutta Gyani and S.L. Saraf, JJ.1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. The claimant Nilkamal Bezbaruah filed a claim petition before the court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guwahati, against the opposite parties for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) on the allegation that on 5.10.1991 at about 9.30 a.m. while he was proceeding from Guwahati towards Jorhat on his company's Ambassador car No. AS-03-2556 and reached ninth mile point on the G.S. Road, a bus No. ASU 9026 coming from the opposite direction dashed against the Ambassador car as a result of which he was thrown towards the windscreen and sustained grievous injuries of permanent nature. The allegation was that injuries suffered by the claimant in the spinal cord affected the nerve system. There is also numbness and permanent pain in the fingers of the hand and brain concussion due to the impact of the accident. According to the claimant due to the impact of the accident he canno...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bongaigaon Refinery and Petro-chemicals ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
D. N. BARUAH, J. :At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has not erred in holding that expenditure of Rs. 87,20,598 incurred in the construction of railway track and siding was of the nature of revenue expenditure and on that reasoning in allowing one-fifth of the total expenditure as an admissible item of deduction ?'2. The facts for the purpose of answering this question may be stated as follows : The assessee is a Government undertaking in the public sector engaged in the refining of crude oil and production of various kinds of by-products. The assessee contributed a sum of Rs. 87,20,598 to the Railway Department for construction of railway track and siding, etc., outside the refinery complex. The assessee claimed the said expenditure as revenue expenditure because according to the assessee the expenditure was for car...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. India Carbon Ltd. and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Baruah, J.1. This appeal is directed against the common judgment dated 25-1-95 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 2441/1994 and 3117/1994.2. The main grounds of attack of the impugned judgment is that the respondent company, namely, India Carbon Limited is not entitled to transport subsidy under the Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971 in respect of manufacture of Calcined Petroleum Coke by the respondent company and that the appellants have full discretion in matter of granting subsidy.3. The facts may be stated as follows :-- The Government of India in the year 1971 announced a Scheme known as 'Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971'. This Scheme came into force with effect from 15-7-71 and it is still in force. The Scheme is applicable to all industrial units situated in specified hilly, remote and inaccessible areas of the country including the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh. The scheme is applicable to industri...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Ratnamala Agarwalla
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
D.N. Baruah, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'), for opinion of this court : 'Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in facts as well as in law in holding the deposit of Rs. 3,69,320 being Compulsory Deposit (Income-tax Payers) Scheme, 1974, is exempt under Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. Heard Mr. G.K. Joshi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, and Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee. 3. Mr. Joshi draws our attention to Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Act and submits that compulsory deposit is not an annuity. On the other hand, Dr. Saraf submits that it is an annuity. Dr. Saraf draws our attention to a decision of the apex court in CWT v. Arundhati Balkrishna : [1970]77ITR505(SC) . Relying on the said decision, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »