Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Feb-16-1973
Goswami, C.J.1. This civil rule relates to the assessment year 1965-66.The petitioner is a registered firm having its head office at Shillong. For the assessment year 1965-66, the petitioner submitted the return of income under Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act'), to the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Shillong (respondent No. 1), on 11th April, 1966, and it was provisionally assessed under Section 141 on a total income of Rs. 4,25,393 on the basis of its return and a demand notice was accordingly issued for payment of Rs. 61,379*21 and actually Rs. 22,219.21 being reduced by the advance tax of Rs. 39,160, already paid. Thereafter, the respondent No. I made an assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and determined the total income of the petitioner as Rs. 4,22,111 (annexure 'A'). A demand notice accordingly was issued on 16th December, 1968, for a sum of Rs. 56,142 which, after adjustment of the amounts paid earlier, came to Rs. 2,584. The calculation arrived...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jul-20-1973
Sarma, J. 1. By this judgment we propose to dispose of two appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), namely Misc. Appeal (F) 37 and Misc. Appeal (F) 38 of 1968, arising out of Motor Accident Claims Cases Nos. 99 and 100, respectively, of 1966. which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 6-6-1968 by the Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Noweong. 2. The above two claims cases arose out of the same accident in which six persons travelling in a bus bearing No. ASA 3482 belonging to M/s. National Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No. 1) were killed, the bus being knocked off by the engine of a running train while crossing the railway lines at Noonmati Railway level crossing. The bus was engaged at that time by the B. O. C. (Pipe Line) Ltd. for transporting some of its employees residing in Gauhati town to and from their residence during the lunch hour and all the six victims were such employees. 3. It may be mentio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Sep-11-1973
R.S. Bindra, J.1. This batch of 14 writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution by various merchants of Gauhati can be dealt with in this common judgment as the facts disclosed by them are almost parallel and the points of law involved are identical.2. We may reproduce the facts of Civil Rule No. 124 of 1970 as a sample. The petitioner Srikrishna Stores, Gauhati, is a registered dealer for the purpose of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act. That petitioner submitted his return for the period ending 30th September, 1967, to respondent No. 1, the Superintendent of Taxes, Gauhati, and in course of time produced its books of account and relevant documents before that officer at the latter's behest. Respondent No. 1 assessed the petitioner to a total tax of Rs. 1,350.33 on including in the turnover the amount charged by the petitioner for the tailored garments supplied to various customers. It appears that respondent No. 1 assessed such garments as 'ready-made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Sep-25-1973
SEN J. - These applications under article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner, Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., are directed against an order dated April 19, 1969, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam, Tripura, Manipur and Nagaland, holding that the Government securities in question were not trading assets of the bank and that the income arising therefrom as interest was not business income and accordingly not exempt under section 81(i) of the Income-tax Act.The Income-tax Officer, A-ward, Shillong, has passed assessment order and had also issued demand notices for assessment years 1954-55 and 1957-58 to 1966-67 on the petitioner, against which the petitioner filed revision applications before the Commissioner of Income-tax, whereupon the Commissioner, after hearing the parties, passed the aforesaid impugned order.Mr. G. K. Talukdar, the learned standing counsel for the department, made a preliminary submission that these applications did not lie, in view of the fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Sep-25-1973
Sen. J.1. These applications under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner, Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., are directed against an order dated April 19, 1969, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam, Tripura, Manipur and Nagaland, holding that the Government securities in question were not trading assets of the bank and that the income arising therefrom as interest was not business income and accordingly not exempt under Section 81(i) of the Income-tax Act. 2. The Income-tax Officer, A-ward, Shillong, has passed assessment orders and had also issued demand notices for assessment years 1954-55 and 1957-58 to 1966-67 on the petitioner, against which the petitioner filed revision applications before the Commissioner of Income-tax, whereupon the Commissioner, after hearing the parties, passed the aforesaid impugned order. 3. Mr. G. K. Talukdar, the learned standing counsel for the department, made a preliminary submission that these applications did not lie, in view...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Nov-16-1973
R.S. Bindra, J.1. By his order dated 28-3-67 Shri R. Natarajan, Deputy Commissioner, Mizo District, Mizoram, dismissed the writ petitioner Sri Ngunhulha when the latter was holding the post of headmaster of the Government Middle English School at Tawipui. The petitioner now challenges the validity and constitutional vires of that order.2. On 28th February, 1966, a widespread armed rebellion broke out in the Mizo District of Assam State. It was led by a political party called Mizo National Front (hereinafer called the Front). On 1st March, 1966, that party issued a proclamation styled 'Independence Bill' declaring the Mizo District to be a sovereign Independent Republic called Mizo ram and pledging to achieve that end by armed revolt. To meet the situation the Central Government issued a notification on 6th March, 1966, directing that Rule 32 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, shall be applicable to the Mizo National Front. The Superintendent of Police, Delhi Special Branch, Mizo Hil...
Tag this Judgment!