Guwahati Court June 1996 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Assam Tribune

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Baruah, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), for opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who deleted the disallowance of Rs. 6,36,979.33 made under Section 40A(3) of the Act ? (2) Whether, under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not err, in facts as well as in law, in impliedly holding that if the transactions are entered in the books of account of the payee then no disallowance is to be made under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The respondent is an assessee under the Act. During the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee made entries of cash payment exceeding Rs. 2,500 in violation of the provisions of Section 40...

Ram Karanji More Vs. Keshardev Jalan

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: AIR1997Gau4

1. This revision petition has been preferred by the Revision petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 31-10-95 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh In Title Appeal No. 39 of 1985 reversing the judgment and decree dated 31-7-85 and 3-8-85 respectively passed' by the Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 111 of 1981.2. The respondent as plaintiff filed the above mentioned Title Suit against the Revision Petitioner as defendant for ejectment from the suit premises on the ground of defaulter, bona fide requirement and unauthorised construction.3. The plaintiff/respondent's case was that he is the owner of the suit premises described in the Schedule of the plaint. The suit premises originally belonged to M/s. Jugal Kishore Kanaiyalal at New Market, Dibrugarh. Being the Karta of the undivided Hindu family, the plaintiff became the owner of the property in. question by a partial partition amongst the family members and became the absolute owner thereof. The defendant...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. Bibijan Begum

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Baruah, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following five questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal underSection 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), for opinion of this court : '1. Whether the learned Tribunal did not err in law in the facts of the case in holding that the general principles of law will prevail over the Muslim customary law in this case ? 2. Whether the learned Tribunal did not err in holding that a valid family arrangement in the eye of law has taken place in this case ? 3. Whether the learned Tribunal did not err in law in going to decide the question that there was no question of forming of association of persons when it was not an issue in the present case for disposal of the appeal and whether it did not err in law in arriving at that conclusion ? 4. Whether the learned Tribunal did not err in law in giving a finding that no gift was involved in this case when that question was not at all necessary in de...

Ram Karanji More Vs. Keshardev Jalan

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: AIR1997Gau4

ORDERM. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred by the Revision petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 31-10-95 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh In Title Appeal No. 39 of 1985 reversing the judgment and decree dated 31-7-85 and 3-8-85 respectively passed' by the Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 111 of 1981.2. The respondent as plaintiff filed the above mentioned Title Suit against the Revision Petitioner as defendant for ejectment from the suit premises on the ground of defaulter, bona fide requirement and unauthorised construction.3. The plaintiff/respondent's case was that he is the owner of the suit premises described in the Schedule of the plaint. The suit premises originally belonged to M/s. Jugal Kishore Kanaiyalal at New Market, Dibrugarh. Being the Karta of the undivided Hindu family, the plaintiff became the owner of the property in. question by a partial partition amongst the family members and became the absolute owner ther...

Shri Mahabir Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Baruah, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following two questions have been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the disallowances by the Income-tax Officer in respect of cash payment of Rs. 61,200 made on various dates to Sharma Enterprises, Gauhati, was proper 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the decision of the Gauhati High Court on identical issue in the case of Paul Brothers v. CIT , the finding of the Tribunal was not erroneous in law ?' 2. The questions relate to the assessee's assessment year 1985-86. For the said assessment year, the assessee claimed deduction under Rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (for shor...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sibson Construction and Co.

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Baruah, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following four questions have been referred for opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : ' (1) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law as well as in facts in holding that dumpers are not road transport vehicles ? (2) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law as well as in facts in holding that as dumpers are not road transport vehicles, additional depreciation is to be allowed after examining certain particulars by the Income-tax Officer ? (3) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law as well as in facts in holding that deduction under Section 32A is allowable even though the assessee's business is not covered by Section 32A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (4) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law as well as in facts in holding that the pucca structures built of cement, M. S. rod, G. I. pipes, etc., in addition to wood, etc., are temporary structures and depreciation is allowable at 20 per cent. ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sibson Construction and Co.

Court: Guwahati

D. N. BARUAH, J. :At the instance of the Revenue, the following four questions have been referred for opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law as well as in facts in holding that dumpers are not road transport vehicles ?(2) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law as well as in facts in holding that as dumpers are not road transport vehicles, additional depreciation is to be allowed after examining certain particulars by the ITO ?(3) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law as well as in facts in holding that deduction under s. 32A is allowable even though the assessees business is not covered by s. 32A(2)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 ?(4) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law as well as in facts in holding that the pucca structures built of cement, M.S. rod, G.I. pipes, etc., in addition to wood, etc., are temporary structures and depreciation is allowable at 20% in place of 7-1/2% as allowed by the AO ?'2. The assessee is a re...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sibson Construction and Co.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Gau)4

D. N. BARUAH, J. :At the instance of the Revenue, the following four questions have been referred for opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law as well as in facts in holding that dumpers are not road transport vehicles ?(2) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law as well as in facts in holding that as dumpers are not road transport vehicles, additional depreciation is to be allowed after examining certain particulars by the ITO ?(3) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law as well as in facts in holding that deduction under s. 32A is allowable even though the assessees business is not covered by s. 32A(2)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 ?(4) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law as well as in facts in holding that the pucca structures built of cement, M.S. rod, G.I. pipes, etc., in addition to wood, etc., are temporary structures and depreciation is allowable at 20% in place of 7-1/2% as allowed by the AO ?'2. The assessee is a reg...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kamala Tea and Industries Ltd.

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Baruah, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has 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 ;' Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not err in facts as well as in law in allowing the carry forward of loss for the assessment year 1984-85 even though the assessee did not file its return of income within the time as prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The assessee, a company carrying on business in tea, submitted its return for the assessment year 1984-85 showing loss of Rs. 4,71,467. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment at a loss of Rs. 1,28,670. The Assessing Officer did not allow carry forward of the business loss as the return of loss was not filed within the time as prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appea...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raghubirdayal Agarwalla

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Baruah, J. 1. In Civil Rule No. 6(M) of 1985, this court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati, to refer the following question for opinion of this court on the basis of an application filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and Sections 2(23) and 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in holding impliedly that when an individual is a partner in a partnership firm representing his Hindu undivided family in which firm, his wife is also a partner, the provisions of Section 64(1)(i) do not apply for clubbing of the share of income of the wife from the said firm with the individual income of the assessee ?' 2. Accordingly, the above question has been referred for opinion of this court. 3. The facts for the purpose of answering this question may be stated as...