Guwahati Court August 2007 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.
Joint Cit (Asset.), Spl. Range-i Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated 30.06.1998 for the assessment year 1995-96 on the following grounds: 1. For that the CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance made under the head subscription. 2. For that the CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in deleting the disallowances made under the head lease rent on leased back assets. 3. Without prejudice to the ground No. 2 above, the CIT(A) is not justified in holding the transaction of sale and lease back assets as genuine and for commercial purpose when these transactions dare nothing but colourable device to avoid payment of tax as envisaged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court' decision in the case of Mc. Dowell & Co. v. CTO 154 ITR 148. 4. For that the CIT(A) eared in law and in facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 16,84,002 made under the head foreign travel expenses when the assessee failed to prove that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusivel...
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation Vs. Hotel Broadway and Ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
A. Hazarika, J.1. Challenge in these writ petitions have been made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to the orders dated April 9, 2003, March 1, 2004 and December 3, 2003 passed in Misc. Case No. 11 (H)03 in Title Suit No. 8 of (H)03. Misc. Case No. 5(H) in T.S. No. 5(H)04 and-Misc. Case No. 125(T) of 3 in T.S. No. 51 (T) of 3 respectively, whereby and whereunder the learned Munsif/Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong granted ad interim injunction restraining the petitioners herein from further proceedings in the matter of assessment, review or any other allied matters of the respondent (herein) firm till further order/orders or till the final disposal of the Misc. case;2. These three writ petitions are taken together for disposal since the matters involve the same question and the relief sought for are the same.3. Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice:The petitioners herein are the authorized Officers under Section 2(aa) of the Employees' Provid...
P. Jibon Singh Vs. State of Manipur and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
U.B. Saha, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 30.7.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 420 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant as not maintainable. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant claiming the outstanding due of Rs. 7,43.093/-+ Rs. 74,407/- i.e., in total Rs. 8,17,500/-, which he is entitled, according to him out of a contract between the petitioner and the Executive Engineer, National High Ways Division No. 1, Public Works Department, Government of Manipur.2. We have heard Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner as well as Mr. S. Suresh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4 at this admission stage, who also raises the question of maintainability of the writ petition and support the judgment of th...
Nilu Singha Roy and anr. Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By Notice Inviting Tender (for short 'NIT'), issued on 18.1.2006, by the Collector of Excise, West Tripura, tenders were invited for settlement of retail vend of Foreign liquor and Country liquor in respect of various shops/ locations as mentioned in the NIT with the MRF fixed for the year 2006-07.2. The appellant herein, who was a licensee for retail vend of India made Foreign liquor/Country liquor in respect of the shop/location, in question, has put to challenge, on various grounds, the said NIT by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to W.P.(C) No. 118 of 2006, one of the grounds of challenge being that the Tripura Excise Act and Tripura Excise. Rules do not permit granting of settlement of retail vend of India made Foreign liquor/country liquor by taking resort to tender process.3. The respondents herein resisted the writ petition by contending, inter alia, that the NIT, issued by the respondents, is in accordanc...
Oil India Limited Vs. Shri Neil Rose and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
D. Biswas, J.1. The question referred to this Court for answer by the learned single Judge vide order dated 10-6-2005 reads as follows:Whether an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988, without the statutory deposit but otherwise filed in time, can be entertained if such deposit is eventually made beyond the period of limitation without the delay being condoned by the Court?2. We have heard Mr. S. N. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the respondents.3. MAC Appeal No. 38 of 2005 has been preferred against the award dated 15-10-2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup in MAC Case No. 809/1995 directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for accidental death of Smt. Julima Rose involving a bus pressed into service by the appellant on hire. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred MAC Appeal No. 38 of 2005 controverting the legality and propriety of the judgment on v...
Utpal Kumar Das Vs. Court of the Munsiff No. 1
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Jasti Chelameswar, C.J.1. Challenging the order dated 16.07.2007 passed by the Munsiff No. 1. Kamrup, Guwanati the present writ petition is filed. By the said order the learned Munsiff directed that warrant of arrest be issued against the petitioner,' who is a police officer in charge of Hatigaon Outpost.2. The facts leading to the issuance of warrant are as follows:The impugned order was passed by the learned Munsiff in Title Execution Case No. 16/2004 on 16.07.2007. Though the material on record is not very clear, we are informed at the Bar that the petitioners in the above petition are the decree holders, who obtained a decree for delivery of possession of an immovable property. For execution of the said decree it appears that they moved the petition numbered T. Ex. Case No. 16/04. It appears from the order dated 29.06.2007 that the executing court passed an order directing delivery of the decree schedule property to the decree holders and also directed that appropriate assistance ...
State of Assam and ors. Vs. Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel Tobacco Product ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
B.P. Katakey, J.1. The State Legislature of Assam, on obtaining previous Presidential sanction under proviso to Article 304(b) of the Constitution, enacted the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2001 (Assam Act 4 of 2001)(in short, 'the principal Act') with a view to levy tax on entry of goods, into any local area of Assam for consumption, use or sale therein, which came into force on October 1, 2001, on publication of a notification dated September 28, 2001 in the Assam Gazette (Extraordinary) specifying the said date, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 1(3) of the said Act. Clause (b) of Section 2(1) defines 'entry of goods into a local area' as entry of goods as specified in the schedule into a local area from any place outside the State for consumption, use or sale therein. Section 2(1)(d) defines 'importer' as a person who brings specified goods into the local area from any place outside the State for consumption, use or sale including for consumption or use of such goods in works...
Namita Paul and ors. Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-29-2007
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Is the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, subject to levy of sales tax under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (in short, 'the TST Act') and if so, who is liable to pay such a tax, are two important questions raised in this series of appeals.2. Yet another question, raised in the present set of appeals, is as to whether Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 A of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 (in short, the 'TST Rules'), can be treated to be a valid piece of delegated legislation, when it mandates every person, responsible for making payment to the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period), to deduct an amount equal to 4 percentum of the dues of such a transfer towards part or full satisfaction of the sales tax payable, under the TST Act, on account of such transfer of the right.3. Before we make endeavour to ...
State of Tripura and ors. Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-29-2007
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of these four writ appeals, which have arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 03.08.2001, whereby the Civil Rule Nos. 73/1996, 256/1997, 520/1997 and 77/1998 have been disposed of by quashing the impugned memoranda, dated 24.01.1994 and 20.05.1995, both the memoranda having been issued by the Department of Revenue, Government of Tripura.2. Let us, first, take note of the material facts and circumstances, which led to the quashing of the memoranda aforementioned:(i) By the two memoranda, dated 24.01.94 and 20.05.1995, aforementioned, all the Heads of Departments were directed to continue to deduct, at source, while making payments of bills, an amount equivalent to 4% of the total gross amount of each bill, for execution of works contract other than RCC bridge and so far as the RCC bridges are concerned, deduction @ 1.57% of the total gross amount of each bill was directed to be made. By these memoranda, dec...
Smti Namita Paul Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Aug-29-2007
1. Is the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, subject to levy of sales tax under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (in short, 'the TST Act') and if so, who is liable to pay such a tax, are two important questions raised in this series of appeals.2. Yet another question, raised in the present set of appeals, is as to whether Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3A of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 (in short, 'the TST Rules'), can be treated to be a valid piece of delegated legislation, when it mandates every person, responsible for making payment to the transferor of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period), to deduct an amount equal to four percentum of the dues of such a transferor towards part or full satisfaction of the sales tax payable, under the TST Act, on account of such transfer of the right.3. Before we make endeavour to answer the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »