Guwahati Court June 1996 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bongaigaon Refinery and Petro-chemicals ...

Court: Guwahati

D.N. BARUAH J. - At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax 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?"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 assesse...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bongaigaon Refinery and Petro-chemicals ...

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Gau)154

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 carr...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lankashi Tea and Seed Estate (P.) Ltd.

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Baruah, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, 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 in proper appreciation of the law enumerated in Section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has erred in sustaining the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)' decision cancelling the interest charged under Section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when advance tax was underestimated by reason of the underestimation of the assessee's current income as compared to the final income actually ascertained at the end of the year ?' 2. The assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It owns a tea estate. As per the assessment made by the assessing authority, the assessee was to pay the first and the second instalment of tax at the rate of Rs. 45,158, but the assessee furnished the statement of advance tax showing advance tax pa...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lankashi Tea and Seed Estate (P) Ltd.

Court: Guwahati

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 the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in proper appreciation of the law enumerated in s. 216 of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has erred in sustaining the CIT(A) decision cancelling the interest charged under s. 216 of the IT Act, 1961, when advance tax was underestimated by reason of the underestimation of the assessees current income as compared to the final income actually ascertained at the end of the year ?'2. The assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It owns a tea estate. As per the assessment made by the assessing authority, the assessee was to pay the first and the second instalment of tax at the rate of Rs. 45,158, but the assessee furnished the statement of advance tax showing advance tax payable to be nil. For the second instalment also it furnished advance tax pay...

State of Tripura Vs. Swapan Dey

Court: Guwahati

N.G. Das, J.1. Accused Swapan Dey has appeared in person. It has been explained to him that he has been found guilty for commission of offence under Section 326, IPC and that he may be sentenced to undergo life imprisonment or to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. On hearing this, the accused Swapan Dey has at first stated that he was not at all involved in this case and he being acquitted by the trial Court married and two children have also born to him by this time. It is further stated that his old mother is alive and he has got no property for the maintenance of his family. It is submitted that he earns his livelihood by cultivating lands of others on Barga system. Hence, if he is sent to jail, his family will be finished.2. After the submission of the accused, Mr. M. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel for the accused has submitted that a period of seventeen years has passed away after commission of the offence and the accused by this time has become father of two c...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lankashi Tea and Seed Estate (P) Ltd.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Gau)133

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 the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in proper appreciation of the law enumerated in s. 216 of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has erred in sustaining the CIT(A) decision cancelling the interest charged under s. 216 of the IT Act, 1961, when advance tax was underestimated by reason of the underestimation of the assessees current income as compared to the final income actually ascertained at the end of the year ?'2. The assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It owns a tea estate. As per the assessment made by the assessing authority, the assessee was to pay the first and the second instalment of tax at the rate of Rs. 45,158, but the assessee furnished the statement of advance tax showing advance tax payable to be nil. For the second instalment also it furnished advance tax paya...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Kanak Chandra Sarma

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Baruah, J. 1. As per direction given by this court in Civil Rules Nos. 4(M) and 5(M) of 1977 for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for opinion of this court : 'Whether on filing of an application under Section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by the assessee before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax for waiver or reduction of penalty imposable under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act, there is a legal presumption of lack of reasonable cause for delay in furnishing the return which precludes the assessee from agitating that question in appeal ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act for both the years for late filing of the returns. For the assessment year 1968-69, the Wealth-tax Officer found that the assessee filed the return on September 5, 1970, showing a net wealth of Rs. 2,83,566 which was assessed as such. Alt...

Bansidhar Sewbhagowan and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Baruah, J. 1. In this income-tax reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred for opinion of this court : For the assessment year 1975-76 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that the date of acquisition of land cannot be taken on the basis of mortgage deed dated August 23, 1963, but has to be taken on the basis of court decree dated April 11, 1970 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that the legal expenses of Rs. 10,10,000 being cost of non-judicial stamp paper incurred for the execution of sale deed of Galakey Tea Estate already acquired in the assessment year 1968-69 was capital expenditure ?' For the assessment year 1976-77 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that the legal expenses Rs. 8,041 being expenses for regi...

Frontier Construction Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Baruah, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), the following two questions have been referred at the instance of the assessee for opinion of this court : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the cancellation of registration under Section 186(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for all the four years ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for non-production of all the partners, the Income-tax Officer had no means to ascertain the existence of a genuine firm and, therefore, was right in cancelling the registration allowed ?' 2. The assessee is a firm registered under the Partnership Act. For the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, the Income-tax Officer passed orders under Section 186(1) of the Act. He found that the firm was allowed registration earlier with eight partner...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. India Tea and Timber Trading Co.

Court: Guwahati

D. N. BARUAH, J. :After the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue requested the Tribunal to refer the following questions under s. 256 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') :'(1) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law as well as in facts in accepting the assessees claim that in the subsequent years production was resumed when, in fact, the factory did not work in subsequent years also ?(2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in fact as well as in law in allowing depreciation to the assessee, when the factory did not work during the relevant year ?(3) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law as well as in facts in holding impliedly that there was passive use of machinery during the year ?'However, the Tribunal referred only questions Nos. 2 and 3 for opinion of this Court.2. The facts for the purpose of answering the said questions may be stated as follows :The assessee is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The firm follows the mercantile system of accounting. ...