Guwahati Court August 1996 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Arun Kumar Jhunjhunwalla and Sons.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: (1997)138CTR(Gau)63

BY THE COURT :In this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'), the following question has been referred for opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the status of the assessee after marriage was that of an HUF and not that of an individual ?'2. The facts may be stated as follows :The assessee is an HUF governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu Law. The said assessee derived share of income from two firms, namely, Pawan Kumar Arun Kumar & Ors. and H. U. Textile, Shillong. The share income from the said two firms was included in the return filed by the assessee in the status of an HUF. The AO took the view that there should be at least two male members to form an HUF and in the absence of a second male member the assessee could not be assessed in the status of the HUF. The AO also took the view, that the fact that assessee, Arun Kumar Jhunjhunwalla, was married on 27th ...

Jalan Timbers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Guwahati

1. As directed by this court, vide judgment dated March 6, 1991, in Civil Rule No. 5(M) of 1991, the Tribunal has referred the following questions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for opinion of this court : ' 1. Whether the Tribunal has any material to justify its finding and conclusion that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of the three cash creditors in all amounting to Rs. 2,15,000 ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the addition of three cash creditors in all amounting to Rs. 2,15,000 as income of the assessee ? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of interest on the cash credit treated as income of the assessee ?'2. The facts for the purpose of answering the questions may be narrated as follows : The assessee carries on timber business and the matter relates to the assessment year 1981-82. In the accounting year 1980-81, the assessee received a loan ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Highway Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. (No. ...

Court: Guwahati

D.N. Baruah, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for the short 'the Act'), the following four questions have been referred for the opinion of this court :' (1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not err in facts as well as in law in holding that the date of accrual of compensation amount is March 30, 1979, and not September 14, 1979 ?(2) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not err in facts as well as in law in holding that the assessee is an industrial company ?(3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessment for the assessment year 1980-81 completed on March 2.3,1984, on the basis of the return of income submitted on March 23, 1983, was not barred by limitation ?(4) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amounts receivable by the assessee in accordance...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Highway Construction Co. (P) Ltd.

Court: Guwahati

D. N. BARUAH, J. :In this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), the following four questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court :"(1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not err in facts as well as in law in holding that the date of accrual of compensation amount is 30th March, 1979, and not 14th Sept., 1979 ?(2) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not err in facts as well as in law in holding that the assessee is an industrial company ?(3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessment for the asst. yr. 1980-81 completed on 23rd March, 1984, on the basis of the return of income submitted on 23rd March, 1983, was not barred by limitation ?(4) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amounts receivable by the assessee in accordance with ...

Surajmal Parsuram Todi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Guwahati

1. At the instance of the assessee, 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, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the levy of penalty on the assessee under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts for answering the question may be stated as follows ;3. The Income-tax Officer after completion of the assessment of the assessee initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271B of the Act for not getting the books of account audited under Section 44AB of the Act. The assessee contended that because of the nature of work it carried on the books of account could not be maintained. The admitted fact is that the assessee had not maintained the books of account for several years. Against that an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who turned down the co...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.C. Construction

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 Income-tax Appellate Tribunalhas referred the following question, at the instance of the Revenue, for opinion of this court :'Whether the Tribunal did not err in facts as well as in law in holding that the assessee-firm the business of which involved crushing of stone boulders to get stone quartz and chip with the help of machines is an industrial undertaking and in that view of the matter in granting it investment allowance under Section 32A.'2. The assessee is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The firm carried on business of converting big boulders into quartz and small chips with the help of plant and machinery particularly, the crusher. During the relevant assessment year 1983-84, the assessee-firm claimed investment allowance for Rs. 45,358 under Section 32A of the Act on stone crusher claiming to be an industrial undertaking. But the Assessing Officer...

Om Prakash Gattani Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Guwahati

S.L. Saraf, J. 1. During the assessment year 1986-87, the petitioner won two lottery prizes one for the value of Rs. 10,50,000 and the other for Rs. 18,000. Under the provisions of Section 194B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the person responsible for paying to any person any income by way of winnings from any lottery or crossword puzzle in an amount exceeding one thousand rupees was obliged to deduct income-tax thereon at the rates in force while making the payment thereof. In the instant case oneChandra Agencies made the payment to the petitioner of the prize money. However, while making the said payment, the said Chandra Agencies, deducted a sum of Rs. 2,62,500 and a sum of Rs. 4,500 on account of the said two lottery winning prizes by way of deduction at source on account of income-tax authorities. However, the said Chandra Agencies did not make any payment of the said tax deducted at source from the said prize money to the income-tax authority. As such, while making an assessment ...

Om Prakash Gattani Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Guwahati

S. L. SARAF, J. :During the asst. yr. 1986-87, the petitioner won two lottery prizes one for the value of Rs. 10,50,000 and the other for Rs. 18,000. Under the provisions of s. 194B of the IT Act, 1961, the person responsible for paying to any person any income by way of winnings from any lottery or crossword puzzle in an amount exceeding one thousand rupees was obliged to deduct income-tax thereon at the rates in force while making the payment thereof. In the instant case one Chandra Agencies made the payment to the petitioner of the prize money. However, while making the said payment, the said Chandra Agencies, deducted a sum of Rs. 2,62,500 and a sum of Rs. 4,500 on account of the said two lottery winning prizes by way of deduction at source on account of IT authorities. However, the said Chandra Agencies did not make any payment of the said tax deducted at source from the said prize money to the IT authority. As such, while making an assessment for the year 1986-87 as against the ...

Om Prakash Gattani Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Gau)340

S. L. SARAF, J. :During the asst. yr. 1986-87, the petitioner won two lottery prizes one for the value of Rs. 10,50,000 and the other for Rs. 18,000. Under the provisions of s. 194B of the IT Act, 1961, the person responsible for paying to any person any income by way of winnings from any lottery or crossword puzzle in an amount exceeding one thousand rupees was obliged to deduct income-tax thereon at the rates in force while making the payment thereof. In the instant case one Chandra Agencies made the payment to the petitioner of the prize money. However, while making the said payment, the said Chandra Agencies, deducted a sum of Rs. 2,62,500 and a sum of Rs. 4,500 on account of the said two lottery winning prizes by way of deduction at source on account of IT authorities. However, the said Chandra Agencies did not make any payment of the said tax deducted at source from the said prize money to the IT authority. As such, while making an assessment for the year 1986-87 as against the p...