Guwahati Court October 1999 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.
Vanhnuaithanga and ors. Vs. State of Mizoram and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-13-1999
1. Heard Mr. H. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T. Vaiphei, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Mizoram and Mr. G. Raju, learned counsel and Mr. M.M. Ali, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. With the consent of the parties Writ Petition (C) No. 16/94 and Writ Petition (C) No.5/95 are heard and disposed of by this common order. The five petitioners in both the cases are the same person. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner No.5 Shri Sangkamlova died and as such no relief has been sought in his favour. Respondent Nos. 5-9 in Writ Petition (C) No. 16/94 are the persons who were initially recruited as Scriptwriter in the year 1981 and for the purpose of convenience hereinafter referred as Respondents Group I (RG I), the respondent No. 5, 6 and 7 in the Writ Petition (C) No. 5/95 are the persons who are initially recruited as Script Writers in the year 1984-1986 and hereinafter referre...
Vanhnuaithanga and ors. Vs. State of Mizoram and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-13-1999
1. Heard Mr. H. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T. Vaiphei, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Mizoram and Mr. G. Raju, learned counsel and Mr. M.M. Ali, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. With the consent of the parties Writ Petition (C) No. 16/94 and Writ Petition (C) No.5/95 are heard and disposed of by this common order. The five petitioners in both the cases are the same person. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner No.5 Shri Sangkamlova died and as such no relief has been sought in his favour. Respondent Nos. 5-9 in Writ Petition (C) No. 16/94 are the persons who were initially recruited as Scriptwriter in the year 1981 and for the purpose of convenience hereinafter referred as Respondents Group I (RG I), the respondent No. 5, 6 and 7 in the Writ Petition (C) No. 5/95 are the persons who are initially recruited as Script Writers in the year 1984-1986 and hereinafter referred a...
Walford Transport (Eastern India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Brijesh Kumar, C.J. 1. The questions of law referred for opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are- '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not barred by limitation ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the financial crisis as faced by the assessee would amount to exceptional or unavoidable circumstances under Sub-clause (1) of Clause (j) of Rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?' 2. Heard Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, and Shri K. P. Sarma, appearing for the Revenue. 3. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. At the very outset it may be indicated that in so far as question No. (i) is concerned, learned counsel for the assessee made a statement that the said question is not pressed. That being the position, it would not be necessary to go into the merits of that...
Khandelwal Construction and ors. Vs. Swadesh Ranjan Dey, Income-tax Of ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, filed by the petitioner for quashing the Criminal Proceedings No. 316(C) of 1992 initiated by the respondents-Income-tax Department and pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati. 2. Heard Sri R. Gogoi, senior advocate for the petitioner, and Sri K.P. Sarma appearing for the respondent. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm where petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are the partners. They filed a return for the year ending August 31, 1980. Subsequently, the assessee submitted a revised return of income, however, it was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer and a higher amount was determined by the Income-tax Department. Computation of total income included a sum of Rs. 82,000 being received by the assessee from certain persons. It has been stated that in their return that assessee-firm made a cash credit for a sum of Rs. 1,70,000 in the name of seven persons. The Income-tax Officer...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›