Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jan-05-1983
Saikia, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, has referred the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case arid on a proper construction of Section 139 and Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act the Tribunal was right in upholding the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act ?'2. As the case is stated, the assessee is a registered firm with its principal place of business at Kohima, Nagaland. The assessment year is 1962-63. A notice under Section 139(2) was issued on December 12, 1962, requiring the assessee to file a return within 30 days, but no return was filed and a notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(a) was issued on February 8, 1963, asking the assessee to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed for not complying with the notice at this stage. A return was filed by the assessee on April 15, 1964, Further opport...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Feb-02-1983
T.N. Singh, J. 1. The appellant in one of the two appeals is the claimant in a land acquisition proceedings who is the victim of few fortuitous circumstances. Her land measuring 19 bighas 3 kathas 14 lechas were requisitioned in 1962 under the D. T. Rules for 'defence purposes'. The acquisition proceedings were started in 1970 under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952, for short the '1952 Act'. Her brother also had lands adjacent to her which were also similarly requisitioned, but in respect of his land acquisition was made in 1973 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short 'the 1894 Act' as a result of which he got higher compensation. She was paid by the Collector for her land at the rate of Rupees 8,500/- per bigha against her claim of Rs. 15,000/- per bigha. The arbitrator, in reference, gave her a rise, of Rs. 500/- per bigha. Her brother got for similar lands at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per bigha, albeit, including the solatium which was payabl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jun-14-1983
D. Pathak, C.J. 1. This matter has arisen out of a reference made by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong. The reference is as hereunder:'No. KJJ/T/77/98 Dated Shillong, the Sir, In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 1475 and 1476 reported in AIR 1975 SC 1022, a confusion has arisen with regard to jurisdiction of Asstt to D. C. in the areas those have been ceded with the Shillong Municipal Authority for the purpose of Municipal Administration only, vide notification No. 44-1 dated New Delhi, the 16th January, 1934. In case No. M. S. 153(T)/76 learned lawyer for defendant contended that this Court got no jurisdiction as both the parties are Tribals and place Mawkhar is outside Shillong Municipality. He relied on above mentioned Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in support of his contention. Learned lawyer for plaintiff contended that this Court get jurisdiction. He referred to Para 20 of 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India. He referred ...
Tag this Judgment!