Guwahati Court July 2000 Judgments

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. the Assam Tribune. (The Assam

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in: (2000)75ITD197(Gau.)

1. The appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee are arising out of the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1991-92.2. The first dispute raised in the appeal is against the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 2,782 being the amount paid to Assam Tribune Sports Club. It was disallowed by the AO on the ground that the expenditure was of a non-trading nature. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that the payments were made for the welfare of the employees who were the members of this sports club and, therefore, he held that the expenditure cannot be said to be for non-trading purposes. As the expenditure is for the welfare of the employees, the CIT(A), in our opinion, was right in allowing the claim of the assessee. No interference is called for. His order on this issue is upheld.3. The next issue is against the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 12,840 made under the head "Biswakarma Puja". It was disallowed by the AO as being not business expenditure. ...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. the Assam Tribune

Court: Guwahati

By the Bench:The appeal by the revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee are arising out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1991-92.2. The first dispute raised in the appeal is against the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 2,782 being the amount paid to Assam Tribune Sports Club. It was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the expenditure was of a non-trading nature. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that the payments were made for the welfare of the employees who were the members of this sports club and, therefore, he held that the expenditure cannot be said to be for non-trading purposes. As the expenditure is for the welfare of the employees, the Commissioner (Appeals), in our opinion, was right in allowing the claim of the assessee. No interference is called for. His order on this issue is upheld.3. The next issue is against the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 12,840 made under the head 'Bi...

Hill Development Co. Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. All the Civil Rules raise the common question of fact and law and as such the same are taken up for hearing together. 2. I have heard Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U.B. Saha, learned senior Govt. Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Civil Rule Nos. 31/93 and 33/92 have been filed challenging the order of assessment dated 30.1.1991 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV, Government of Tripura, Agartala for the year 1988-89 in exercise of the powers under section 9(4) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 in respect of the firm of the petitioner. In these Civil Rules the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura, Agartalain appeal dated 1.1.1992 and 3.1.1992 are also challenged. 4. Civil Rule Nos. 32/92 and 34/92 arise out of an order dated 18.1.1992 passed by the Certificate Officer, Government of Tripura, Agartala imposing penalty under section 13 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act,...

Hill Development Co. Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. All the Civil Rules raise the common question of fact and law and as such the same are taken up for hearing together.2. I have heard Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U.B. Saha, learned senior Govt. Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondents.3. Civil Rule Nos. 31/93 and 33/92 have been filed challenging the order of assessment dated 30.1.1991 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV, Government of Tripura, Agartala for the year 1988-89 in exercise of the powers under section 9(4) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 in respect of the firm of the petitioner. In these Civil Rules the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura, Agartalain appeal dated 1.1.1992 and 3.1.1992 are also challenged.4. Civil Rule Nos. 32/92 and 34/92 arise out of an order dated 18.1.1992 passed by the Certificate Officer, Government of Tripura, Agartala imposing penalty under section 13 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976...

M. Thangi Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. I have heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva. learned counsel assisted by Mr. A.R. Malhotra. learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.N. Choudhury. learned Additional Senior Central Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1. 2 & 3 and Mr. T. Vaiphei, learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent No. 4.2. The petitioner's case in brief is that she started cultivation in the land in question in 1975. obtained a Pass in 1982, then L.S.C. No. PC/LS 10/83, and ultimately in supersession thereof the L.S.C. No. PC/LS-54/89 dated 19.9.1989 (Anncxurc-1). The L.S.C. (Land Settlement Certificate) has been issued by the Lai Autonomous District Council under Section 4 of the Pawi (later renamed as Lai) Autonomous District Council (Land) Act, 1979. But since 1982 the petitioner No. 3 O.C., 71 RCC (Officer Commanding, 71 Road Construction Company) C/o 99 APO has been in illegal occupation of the said land without her permission causing damage of crops and fruit bearing trees thereon without paying an...

C.C. Chhundenga Vs. State of Mizoram and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. I have heard Mr. G. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Vaiphei, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State respondents. None appeared for the private respondents. I have also considered the records of the case including the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondents and the annexuers thereto. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Supervisor (Mukhyasevika) on ad hoc basis by the respondent No. 3 Director, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Mizoram vide order dated 31.8.83 (Annexure-I). He joined as such on 1-9-1983. Subsequently, the post of Supervisor were advertised. The petitioner also appeared before the Selection Committee and was selected for regularisation of appointment. An order dated 8.12.1983 (Annexure-II) was issued appointing him as such with effect from 9.12.1983. By another order dated 9.6.1993 (Annexure-VI) the petitioner was allowed to count his aforesaid period as Supervisor from 1.9.1983 for future increments but not for...

M. Thangi Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. I have heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva. learned counsel assisted by Mr. A.R. Malhotra. learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.N. Choudhury. learned Additional Senior Central Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1. 2 & 3 and Mr. T. Vaiphei, learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent No. 4.2. The petitioner's case in brief is that she started cultivation in the land in question in 1975. obtained a Pass in 1982, then L.S.C. No. PC/LS 10/83, and ultimately in supersession thereof the L.S.C. No. PC/LS-54/89 dated 19.9.1989 (Anncxurc-1). The L.S.C. (Land Settlement Certificate) has been issued by the Lai Autonomous District Council under Section 4 of the Pawi (later renamed as Lai) Autonomous District Council (Land) Act, 1979. But since 1982 the petitioner No. 3 O.C., 71 RCC (Officer Commanding, 71 Road Construction Company) C/o 99 APO has been in illegal occupation of the said land without her permission causing damage of crops and fruit bearing trees thereon without paying an...

Lalzawliana Vs. State of Mizoram and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. I have heard Mr. G. Raju and Mr. S. Sailo, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T. Vaiphei, learned Asst. Advocate General for the State respondent Nos. 2. 3, 4 and 5 and Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 6. 2. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the decision of the respondent Government to accept the tender of the respondent No. 6 for Group 1 of the NIT No. 7/EE(PWD)/AD/ 1999-2000 issued by the respondent No. 5 the Executive Engineer, PWD, Airport Division, Mizoram, Aizawl and the further direction to the respondents to allot the said work to the petitioner, being the lowest tenders I have considered the writ petition with annexures thereto, the affidavit-in-opposition with annexures thereto filed on behalf of the State respondents and the affidavit-in-opposition with annexures thereto filed on behalf of the private respondent No. 6. 3. Th...

Sri Mohibur Rahman Vs. the State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

D. Biswas, J.1. By this common judgment Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1996 and Criminal Appeal No. 130/1999 are proposed to be disposed of.2. We have heard Mr. C. R. Dey and Shri J. M. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Shri D. Saikia, learned Public Prosecutor.3. An information in writing was submitted to the Officer-in-Charge of Nalbari Police Station by Md. Badrul Ali, P.W. 3 to the effect that Md. Rahul Islam, since deceased, was missing from 24-1-1991. This information was filed on 5-2-1991. On the following day i.e. on 6-2-1991, an ejahar was filed before the said Police Officer by P.W. 3 informing that they came to know from some people that accused Md. Taijuddin Ahmed and Md. Mohibur Rahman along with some other persons killed Md. Rahul Islam with knife and buried the body in an unknown place in Malopara Village in the morning hours on 25-1-1991. The police, on completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet against Md. Taijuddin Ahmed, Md. Mohibur Ra...

Airport Authority of India Vs. Satyagopal Roy and ors.

Court: Guwahati

1. This appeal under Section 9(C) of the Air Craft Act is directed against the award dtd. 15.11.1995 made by the Sole Arbitrator, Sri R.B. Sinha.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents 1 to 10 had their land and houses situated adjacent to the Agartala Airport. There were standing trees on the said land and as the trees endangered the safety of the Aircraft and passenger as provided under the said Aircraft Act, the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura was authorised by the competent authority vide order dtd. 22.10.1990 to cut the tall trees and other obstruction within the radius of the run way. Thereafter, the District Magistrate issued necessary direction to the 22 families and thereafter 16 families cut and removed the trees and they were paid necessary compensation. The remaining six families covering the Respondents 1 to 10 did not cut their trees, where-upon notices were issued to them on 10.9.1990, 15.10.1990 and 17.11.1990. The respondent also file...