Guwahati Court October 2009 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Williamson Tea (Assam) Ltd. (Formerly G ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-28-2009
Reported in: [2009]319ITR368(Gauhati)
J. Chelameswar, C.J.1. Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the applicant.2. This application is filed praying that the delay of 290 days in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated August 31, 2007, passed in I.T.A. No. 44 (Gauhati)/2004 and in I.T.A. No. 51(Gauhati)/2004 for the assessment year 2000-01 be condoned. The application is filed by the Revenue invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.3. The respondent is served, represented by Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned senior counsel.4. When the matter is taken up today Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned senior Counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present application. The learned Counsel argued that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to the appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act. The power conferred upon the courts by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay, if any, in presenting either an appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Riangdo Veneers Private Ltd. Vs. State of Mizoram and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-21-2009
Reported in: (2010)27VST327(Gauhati)
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. This writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed so as to challenge the show-cause notice issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Aizawl under Section 32(1) of the Mizoram Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, 'the MVAT Act'), asking as to why the materials supplied by the petitioner to the Chief Engineer, Power and Electricity Department during the year 2008 shall not be subjected to assessment for payment of VAT.2. I have heard Shri Michael Zothankhuma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned Additional Advocate-General, Mizoram. Also perused the rival pleadings and documents filed with the writ petition and State affidavit.3. The brief facts giving rise to the issuance of the show-cause notice by the Superintendent of Taxes, Aizawl are that respondent No. 2 invited tenders for supply of swaged steel tubular poles on July 3, 2007. In pursuance of the NIT, the writ petitioner submitted its tender which wa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Assam Mineral Development Corporation L ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-20-2009
Reported in: [2010]320ITR149(Gauhati)
Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Revenue raises the following substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be charged on the ground that the direction to charge such interest is not mentioned in the assessment order though the same is charged as per tax calculation sheet forming part of the assessment order?2. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed at the very outset.3. Pursuant to an order dated June 26, 2002, passed by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') under Section 254 of the Act, the Assessing Officer finalised the assessment of the respondent for the year 1992-93 by an order dated December 23, 2003. By the said order the Assessing Officer determined the total i...
Tag this Judgment!Hareswar Roy Vs. Mustt. Monowara Begum and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-19-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Gau22
ORDERI.A. Ansari, J.1. The opposite-party herein instituted Title Suit No. 22/2000, with the present petitioner and one Nazrul Hoque, as defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, seeking, inter alia, declaration that the sale deed, whereby the present petitioner has purchased the suit land from defendant No. 2, Nazrul Hoque, was collusive and illegal and also for declaration of the plaintiff's rights, title and interest over the suit property. The opposite-party herein also filed, in the said suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, 'the Code'), praying for granting of temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, workmen, etc. from entering into the suit land and disturbing the plaintiff-respondent's peaceful possession of the suit land till disposal of the suit. This application for injunction, filed by the opposite-party herein, gave rise to Misc. (J) Case No. 10/2000, wherein an order...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›