Court : Guwahati
N. Ibotombi Singh, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, at theinstance of the assessee, referred under Section 27 of the W,T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter called ' the Act '), the following questions to this court: '(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in the case of the assessee, the calculation of the penalty should be in accordance with Section 18(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as it stood up to March 31, 1965, and then as substituted with effect from April 1, 1965, by Section 18 of the Wealth-tax (Amendment) Act, 1964, and with effect from April 1, 1969, by Section 24 of the Finance Act, 1969, in the view that the default was a continuing one (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of penalty under Section 18(1)(a) passed by the Wealth-tax Officer (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on the basis of the find...
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
J. N. SHARMA, J. :All the writ petitions raise common questions of law and are based on the same factual matrix and as such as agreed to are taken up for hearing together and this judgment shall cover all of them.2. The four petitioners, residents of Imphal and carrying on business at Imphal and belonging to the same family, along with the four others, residents of Calcutta, claimed to have purchased a lottery ticket worth Rs. 5 of the Government of Nagaland. It is claimed that they were the joint purchasers of the ticket and were entitled to the prize money equally. The draw was held on 31st October, 1983, and the ticket won the first prize of rupees one crore. The four other persons are : (i) Md. Ayub, (ii) Md. Anwar, (iii) Md. Elyas and (iv) Md. Abhas, all of 4, Achambit Show Road, Calcutta-22.Claim was made for the share of each and accordingly it was paid by deducting tax at the source from individual claims and the necessary certificate of deduction was given in 1984.The four pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, North Eastern Region, Shillong (Commissioner of Income-tax), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion ; 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payments made for the purchase of stock-in-trade amount to expenditure within the meaning of Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?'2. The facts of the case are as follows. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in hardware. For the assessment year 1970-71 (corresponding to the previous year Ram Navmi 2026), the assessee-firm submitted its return of income showing the taxable income from business at Rs. 7,860. A copy of the profit and loss account was also filed. In the course of examination of the books of account for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. The questions involved in this appeal are: (1) whether there was a cause of action for the suit; and (2) whether the notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. was adequate and valid. The point whether such a notice was actually served upon the defendant does not at present arise. These questions were taken up at a preliminary stage and answered against the plaintiff by the learned District Judge, Lower Assam Districts, who dismissed the suit; and hence the present appeal. 2. In the action, the plaintiff sued for declaration that a certain Bill, which subsequently became an Act, was ultra vires the Provincial Legislature, and that it offended against the provisionsof Section 299, Government of India Act, 1935, and alsothat in any event the bill in question did not applyto the Estate of the plaintiff which was held undera special contract with the Government of India.The Province of Assam was a party defendant tothe suit actually came to be instituted on 28-11-1949. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Saikia, J. 1. The writ petitioner as the General Secretary, Deshi Tripura (Laskart Upajati Kalyan Samity, Agartala impugns the cabinet decision of the Government of Tripura, dt. 11-8-1975 to the effect that the Deshi Tripura (Laskar community), a community described as Laskar Kshatria and Deshi Tripura was not covered by the terms mentioned in the Presidential Scheduled Tribes Orders of 1951, 1956 and 1976 for Tripura; and the instructions issued by the Government of Tripura dt. 27-9-1978 not to issue Scheduled Tribe Certificates to the members of that community. The only question to be decided is whether the Deshi Tripura (Laskar) community is included within the Tripura, Tripuri, Tippera tribal community of Tripura.2. The petitioner belongs to the Deshi Tripura (Laskar) community, commonly known and hereinafter referred to, as 'Laskar' community. Mr. N. M. Lahiri, the learned Advocate General, Meghalaya for the petitioner submits that the 'Laskar' community is part and parcel of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Lahiri, J. 1. ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in refusing to rectify its orders dated May 30, 1974, in I.T.A. No. 709 (Gau) of 1972-73, and dated May 31, 1974, in I.T.A. No. 710 (Gau) of 1972-73, having regard to the provisions of Section 13 of the Direct Taxes (Amendment) Act, 1974, on the ground that it was a debatable point and so no rectification order can be passed under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment! years 1961-62 and 1962-63 '2. The above common question has been referred to the High Court under Section 254(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for short ' the Act ' by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench at Gauhati.3. Relevant facts leading up to the reference may be summarised asfollows :4. For the assessment year 1961-62, the return of income of the assessee was due for submission on July 21, 1961. Similarly for the assessment year 1962-63, return of income was due for sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for appropriate writs against the opposite parties, preventing them from enforcing the provisions of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Assam Act XVII of 1947, as amended) against the petitioner, and compelling him to get himself registered as a 'dealer' and to submit returns. The petitioner is the holder of what is known as the Bijni Raj Estate.2. Within the ambit of his zamindari, there are sal forests, which are divided into coupes, and standing sal trees are settled every year in different coupes and lots by auction--usually to the highest bidder. The settlement-holders are permitted to fell the sal trees and market them by sawing and other processes, for sale. The Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri, issued a notice on the petitioner under section 10 of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, on 14th September, 1953, requiring him to apply for registration as a 'dealer' under the said Act, or to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
BAHARUL ISLAM J. - (8-7-77). These references involve common questions of law; as such this judgment will dispose of all of them.As the facts and periods of assessments in Wealth-tax Reference No. 5/75 are more comprehensive, it will be more convenient to refer to the material facts of this reference first.The assessment years involved in this reference are from 1963-64 to 1968-69. Admittedly, the assessee was liable to pay wealth-tax for all these years. He was required under section 14(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter called "the Act"), to furnish to the Wealth-tax Officer (hereinafter called "W.T.O.") a return in the prescribed form. In this case, he did not do so. The W.T.O. issued notices to the assessee under section 14(2) of the Act and notices were served on him. He did not comply with the notices. The W.T.O. also issued notices on the assessee under section 16(4) of the Act. They were also not complied with. In the circumstances, he completed on Octob...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.P. Saraf, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether 'pea-gravels' supplied by the petitioner falls within the category of goods described as 'metals, stone chips, any other products or sub-products arising out of bricks or stones' specified in item 29 of the Schedule of taxable goods attached to the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976.2. The petitioner, a Government contractor, is a dealer registered under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. During the relevant period the petitioner supplied pea-gravels to the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division No. (III), Udaipur, South Tripura, in pursuance of a work order issued by him. The petitioner submitted his returns of turnover under the Act for the relevant periods to the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala, showing tax due as 'nil' on the ground that pea-gravels supplied by him did not fall in any of the taxable items described in the Schedule of taxable g...
Tag this Judgment!