Court : Guwahati
PATHAK C.J. - The following question of law has been referred by the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") :"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the consolidated order dated March 31, 1970, of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Shillong Range, Shillong relating to the assessment year 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70, with a direction to give a finding on the point as to what amount out of the securities is the stock-in-trade or circulating capital of the assessee, the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. and which is the capital investment of the assessee-bank ?"Officer that the assessees sole income including interest on securities was in the nature of business income and, therefore, it was totally exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Pathak, C.J. 1. The following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'): 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the consolidated order dated March 31, 1970, of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Shillong Range, Shillong, relating to the assessments for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, with a direction to give a finding on the point as to what amount out of the securities is the stock-in-trade or circulating capital of the assessee, the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. and which amount is the capital investment of the assessee-bank ?'2. The facts of the case are briefly stated below. The relevant assessment years are 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70,3. The assessee, Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., is a bank regi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Baharul Islam, J. 1. The following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati: '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper construction of the deed of partnership dated May 25, 1959, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-firm was not entitled to continuation of registration under Section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1965-66 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that continuation of registration could not be allowed for a part of the year, i.e., till the death of the deceased partner ?' The relevant facts may be briefly stated: The assessee, M/s. K. C. Trunk & Bucket Factory, Gauhati, was a firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The partnership deed dated May 25, 1959, shows that the firm had three partners, Kisturchand Siotia, Bhairulal Siotia, and Mahab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Pathak, C.J.1. The following two questions of law as arising out of the consolidated order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 have been referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 3961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'): '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act read with Explanation to that section were justified in respect of the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that for the purpose of calculation of penalty the difference between the tax on the incomes shown in the first return and the tax on the incomes assessed shall be taken as the amounts of tax that would have been avoided ?' 2. The relevant assessment years are 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66. In the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Pathak, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following question of law as arising out of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in restoring the order of the Income-tax Officer by which he cancelled the renewal of registration granted to the assessee-firm, M/s. Mahabir Prasad Kishanlal & Co., for the assessment year 1955-56 ?' 2. The facts of the case are as follows : 3. The assessee-firm, M/s. Mahabir Prasad Kishaalal & Co., consists of eight partners out of which three are minors. The minors have entered into the partnership through their fathers. The assessee-firm was granted registration on the basis of the partnership deed dated April 1, 1952, under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1922 Act'). Thereafter, the registration was renewed for the year 1955-56, the relevant assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Bindra, J. 1. The short though somewhat vexing question that falls for determination in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Assam Financial Corporation, Shillong, hereinafter briefly referred to as the Corporation, is about the exact legal connotation of the expression 'individual' used in Section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'the Act'. 2. The facts that have led to the making of the present petition can be briefly summarised. On January 23, 1968, the Wealth-tax Officer, Ward-A, Shillong, issued a notice under Section 17 of the Act communicating to the Corporation that the net wealth of the Corporation chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1959-60 had escaped assessment and requiring the Corporation to submit its return of wealth within 35 days of the receipt of the notice. That communication led to exchange of correspondence between the wealth-tax authorities and the officials of the Corporation wherein the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.K. Goswami, C.J.1. The appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment Under Section 392, Indian Penal Code, and has lodged an appeal before this Court through Counsel. The memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certified copy of judgment which he had earlier obtained free of cost. The Stamp Reporter has refused to register the appeal unless the required court-fee is affixed on the certified copy of the judgment amounting to Rs. 15/- under Article 9 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act. The stamp Reporter has quoted an administrative circular of the High Court dated 2-5-1961 whereby it was ordered that 'no copy of order or judgment of a criminal proceeding shall be filed, exhibited or recorded in any Court of Justice unless the same is stamped as required under Article 9 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act and this must be invariably followed by all concerned'.2. Mr. B. C. Barua, the learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that although the amount is small, he craves for a dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.K. Goswami, C.J.1. This revision is directed against conviction Under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. The petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner was a police constable under the Government of Assam posted at Silchar in 1947. At the time of partition of India, he opted for Pakistan and he was released from service under the Assam Government with effect from 13-12 1947 and he was directed to report to the Inspector General of Police in Dacca. It is said, that the accused-petitioner entered India on 3-10-1954 with > a Pakistan passport dated 26-11-1953 and Visa dated 6-8-1954 of Category 'B'. A photograph of the accused was pasted to the passport and the visa. He was thereafter found residing in the village Ramnagar in Cachar in September, 1965 and he was arrested and prosecuted' Under Section 14, as mentioned above.3. Prosecution examined six witnesses and the accused also examined two witnesses. The plea of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.K. Goswami, C.J. 1. The petitioner describes herself as heiress and legal representative of late Barin Raha and an assessee under the Income-tax Act. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, she is challenging three orders of the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Digboi. The first is an assessment order dated November 25, 1965, under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'new Act'), for the assessment year 1961-62. The second is an order dated December 26, 1967, rectifying the above order under Section 154 of the new Act and the consequent notice of demand dated December 29, 1967, under Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the 'old Act'). The third is a notice dated March 13, 1967, under, Section 148 of the new Act. 2. The facts necessary for appreciation of the questions raised in this application may briefly be set out: A notice dated May 11, 1961, under Sections 22(2) and 38 of the old Act was ser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
R.S. Bindra, J.C.1. By his judgment dated 31-7-1969, Shri P.N. Roy, Special Judge (II), Manipur, convicted the appellant, Manjunatta George Varaghes under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, hereafter called the Act, and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment. The sum of Rs. 11,300/-seized from the convict by the Police was directed to be confiscated to the State. Having felt aggrieved, the convict has come up in appeal.2. The facts of the prosecution case, shortly put, are that on getting some firm intelligence, Shri A. Nilamani Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, rushed to the Tulihal airport and contacted Manjunatta George Varaghes who was one of the passengers to board the plane that was expected to fly shortly afterwards. The Sub-Inspector searched the baggage of Maniunatta George Varaghes and found currency notes of rupees one hundred each of the total value of Rs. 11,300/- inside a pillow forming part of that baggage. The money was seized and the accu...
Tag this Judgment!