Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jan-23-1976
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
Decided on : Aug-18-1976
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
Decided on : Aug-18-1976
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
Decided on : Dec-15-1976
Pathak, C.J. 1. The facts of these two cases are identical or similar and the questions of law arising for determination are also identical with the only difference that the assessment year involved in Civil Rule No. 101 of 1974 is 1964-65 and that in Civil Rule No. 102 of 1974 is 1965-66 and the parties are also the same. This judgment will, therefore, cover both these cases. 2. By these two petitions the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the assessment order dated February 7, 1970, passed by the Income-tax Officer, ' A ' Ward, Dibrugarh, for the assessment year 1964-65 and the notice dated 17/28-12-68 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as well as the assessment order dated nil passed by the Income-tax Officer, ' A ' Ward, Dibrugarh, for the assessment year 1965-66 and the notice dated 17/28-12-68 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '). 3. The facts of these two cases briefly are that two ...
Tag this Judgment!