Guwahati Court August 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-23-1996
1. As per the direction given by this court on April 25, 1994, in Civil Rule No. 34(M) of 1992, the following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), for opinion of this court : ' (1) Whether the Tribunal did not err in facts as well as in law in holding that Rule 6AA which was made effective from August 1, 1981, and which was held to be substantive law by the Tribunal itself, would be applicable in respect of pending assessment as on August 1, 1981 (2) Whether the Tribunal did not err in facts as well as in law in holding that Rule 6AA which was stated to be substantive law and which was brought into the statute with effect from August 1, 1981, would apply in respect of expenses incurred on or before June 30, 1980 (3) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to weighted ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. (No. 1)
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
D.N. Baruah, J.1. In this reference, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), as per the direction of this court in Civil Rule No. 33(M) of 1992, for the opinion of this court : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has not erred in law in directing the Assessing Officer to ascertain the nature of the scraps sold to see whether such scrap was intimately connected with the tea business to determine the taxability of income from sale proceeds at 100 per cent. or 40 per cent. when Rule 8(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, clearly says that 40 per cent. of the income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured shall be deemed to be income liable to tax and no other income except income from sale of tea grown and manufactured comes under the purview of Rule 8(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 '2. The Assessing Officer assessed the income f...
Raichand Kothari (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
D.N. Baruah, J.1. In this reference as per direction given by this court in Civil Rule No. 9(M) of 1992, the following four questions have been referred under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), for opinion of this court ; '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the ratio of the decision laid down by the High Court in the ease of Tolaram Daga [1966] 59 ITR 532 under the Indian income-tax Act, 1922, would not apply in the present case of the assessee in view of the provisions contained in Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thus reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) passed referring and relying on the said decision, amongst others, and restoring the findings of the Assessing Officer regarding the cash credits in question ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal being the final fact finding authority was just...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
D.N. BARUAH, J. :In this reference, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), as per the direction of this Court in Civil Rule No. 33(M) of 1992, for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has not erred in law in directing the AO to ascertain the nature of the scraps sold to see whether such scrap was intimately connected with the tea business to determine the taxability of income from sale proceeds at 100 per cent or 40 per cent when r. 8(1) of the IT Rules, 1962, clearly says that 40 per cent of the income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured shall be deemed to be income liable to tax and no other income except income from sale of tea grown and manufactured comes under the purview of r. 8(1) of the IT Rules, 1962 ?'2. The AO assessed the income from sale of scrap at 100 per cent for the asst. yr. 1982-83. The assessee preferred appeal...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. (No. 2)
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
D.N. Baruah, J. 1. The following question has been referred under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), as per the direction of this court in Civil Rule No. 2(M) of 1994 for the opinion of this court : 'Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to admit the assessee's ground relating to weighted deduction under Section 35(1)(ii)/35(2A) taken before him and dispose of the matter on merits when the same was not raised before the Assessing Officer ?'2. The facts for the purpose of answering this question are : In connection with the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee-company did not make any claim for deduction under Section 35(1)(ii)/35(2A) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer did not pass any order on this point. The assessee wanted to raise this ground as an additional ground before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, the Commissioner of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
D. N. BARUAH, J. :The following question has been referred under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), as per the direction of this Court in Civil Rule No. 2(M) of 1994 for the opinion of this Court :'Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the CIT(A) to admit the assessees ground relating to weighted deduction under s. 35(1)(ii)/35(2A) taken before him and dispose of the matter on merits when the same was not raised before the AO ?'2. The facts for the purpose of answering this question are :In connection with the asst. yr. 1982-83, the assessee-company did not make any claim for deduction under s. 35(1)(ii)/35(2A) of the Act. Therefore, the AO did not pass any order on this point. The assessee wanted to raise this ground as an additional ground before the CIT(A), however, the CIT(A) rejected the appeal along with other grounds. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, af...
George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-21-1996
D.N. Bauah, J. 1. As per the direction of this court in Civil Rule No. 17(M) of 1992, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), for opinion of this court : ' (1) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,67,876 being cost of repairs of motor cars was to be taken into consideration for the purpose of Section 37(3A) of this Act ?(2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,12,646 being motor vehicles tax paid during the relevant previous year was to be taken into consideration for the purpose of Section 37(3A) of the Act ?'2. The assessee, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, owns tea gardens. In running the gardens, the assessee-company uses motor vehicles. For the purpose of maintenance of the vehicles, the assessee-company makes certain expenses. Besides this, the company is also required to pay tax for motor vehicles under...
Miss Lumbini Baruah Vs. Cotton College, Guwahati and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
D.N. Chowdhury, J.1. The matter relates to a premier educational institution of this part of the country which so far contributed as a centre of acquisition of knowledge.2. The petitioner is presently studying in the First Year Science of Three Year Degree Course (TDCJ in the Cotton College, Guwahati. After passing her All India Sr. School Certificate Examination (Class XII) in the year 1995, she was admitted in the First Year (Science) of TDC and was pursuing her studies with Zoology as major, with Botany, Anthropology and English. The final examination of 1st Year (Science) of the TDC of Cotton College was held in the month of March 1996 and the petitioner appeared in the said examination. On 23-3-96 while she was in the midst of her examination the petitioner was served with a notice from the office of the Dean of the Cotton College, Guwahati. By the said notice the petitioner along with another student was asked to produce their original mark sheets along with other relevant docum...
Amines Plasticizers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
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 short, 'the Act'), for opinion of this court : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in not considering and deciding the question raised in the additional ground before the Tribunal as regards allowing of Rs. 16,18,019 being the amount of interest due and payable by the assessee on loans for acquisition of fixed assets as revenue expenditure in the assessment year 1985-86 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in refusing to consider and decide the additional ground of appeal on the ground that the said additional ground was not raised before the Tribunal in accordance with the prescribed rules and method ought to be followed in such matters ?' 2. For the purpose of answering these two questions the facts of the case may, briefl...
Anand Ram Raitani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
D.N. Baruah, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this court :' Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances, Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has any application at all to this case ?'2. The facts for answering this reference may be stated thus :This reference relates to the assessment year 1982-83. The Assessing Officer found that there was a cash credit of Rs. 2 lakhs as on April 1, 1981, standing in the name of six persons including minors. The AssessingOfficer asked the assessee to produce the creditors, but the assessee replied that the parties had confirmed the credits by their letters given earlier. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee did not give any reason for non-production of the creditors in spite of the specific direction given by him. He examined the records of some of these parties and held tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »