Guwahati Court August 1998 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-11-1998
P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue and as per the direction of this court in Civil Rule No. 6(M) of 1993 the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short ('the Act'). '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to admit the assessee's grounds relating to the weighted deduction taken before him and dispose of the matter on merits when the same was not raised before the Assessing Officer ? (2) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified that the expenses incurred by the assessee in respect of the wives of the directors were necessary for the business of the assessee-company ?' 2. We have heard Mr. G.K. Joshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, assisted by Mr. U. Bhuyan, and Shri R. Gogoi, learned counsel for t...
Meghalaya Metals and Minerals (P) Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) an ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the show-cause notice dated 25.4.97 issued by the Assistant Commissioner. Central Excise Division, Shillong, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 1,41,670.74 should not be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund as defined in Section 12C of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act'), and for a mandamus on the respondents to refund the said amount with interest to the petitioner.2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing conductors and P.V.C. wires and is liable to Central Excise duty under the Act on some of the items manufactured by it. During the period 1985-86, the petitioner removed different goods manufactured by it from its factory located in the Industrial Estate at Shillong on payment of Excise Duty. Subsequently, however, the petitioner realised that under the...
Meghalaya Metals and Minerals (P) Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) an ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the show-cause notice dated 25.4.97 issued by the Assistant Commissioner. Central Excise Division, Shillong, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 1,41,670.74 should not be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund as defined in Section 12C of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act'), and for a mandamus on the respondents to refund the said amount with interest to the petitioner.2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing conductors and P.V.C. wires and is liable to Central Excise duty under the Act on some of the items manufactured by it. During the period 1985-86, the petitioner removed different goods manufactured by it from its factory located in the Industrial Estate at Shillong on payment of Excise Duty. Subsequently, however, the petitioner realised that under the n...
Pandab Das Vs. State of Tripura
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
D. Biswas, J.1. Heard Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. U.B. Saha, learned Govt. Advocate.2. At the outset Mr. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor raised an objection as to the maintainability of this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the provisions incorporated therein permitting only the person having reasonable apprehension of being arrested in a non-bailable offence to file the petition. According to learned Public Prosecutor this petition having been filed by Shri Pandab Das on behalf of Shri Anil Das, the requirement of Section 438, Cr.P.C. has not been complied with. In addition, reference has been made to a Division Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court, reported in 1998 Cr L.. J. 1383, where the word 'he' has been interpreted not to include a stranger or a tadbi kar or middleman. In para 15 of the aforesaid judgment, the Calcutta High Court while laying down the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›