Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: guwahati Page 6 of about 132 results (0.022 seconds)

Aug 05 1996 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.C. Construction

Court : Guwahati

..... is an industrial undertaking and in that view of the matter in granting it investment allowance under section 32a.'2. the assessee is a firm registered under the indian partnership act. the firm carried on business of converting big boulders into quartz and small chips with the help of plant and machinery particularly, the crusher. during the ..... . 45,358 was also erroneous. in this connection, mr. bhuyan has submitted that in order to get benefit of section 32a(1) and (2) of the act, there must be a manufacturing process as it is generally understood. he submits that making chips from big boulders cannot be said to be a manufacturing process, it ..... relevant assessment year 1983-84, the assessee-firm claimed investment allowance for rs. 45,358 under section 32a of the act on stone crusher claiming to be an industrial undertaking. but the assessing officer under the provisions of sections 32a(1) and 32a(2) of the ..... amount to a manufacturing process and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to the investment allowance as envisaged under section 32a of the income-tax act, 1961.10. in view of the above, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. ..... act held that the stone crusher would not come in the category of machinery or plant and also, it was further held by the assessing officer .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 1972 (HC)

Sikaria Sons and Company and anr. Vs. Superintendent of Taxes and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... . the facts of c.r. no. 214 alone may be noted.2. the petitioner no. 1 (briefly petitioner) is a registered firm under the indian partnership act and runs a roller flour mill at gauhati and the petitioner no. 2, one of the partners, manages the affairs of the firm. the government supplies ..... by the superintendent. the learned advocate-general submits that, as a matter of practice, the commissioner after delegating powers under various sections of the act does not exercise the same powers. we are not required to consider this aspect of the matter in that light. it is sufficient to point ..... not required to do assessments at the base. although the power resides in the commissioner, in order to carry on the tax administration smoothly, the act provides for delegation of his powers. no objection has been made with regard to the power of delegation conferred on the commissioner. although at one ..... superintendent. by rule 71, the officer to whom powers may be delegated under section 50 shall exercise the powers subject to the provisions of the act and the rules thereunder and to such restrictions as may be imposed by the commissioner in delegating the powers. it is, therefore, clear that ..... the superintendent of taxes on 11th november, 1967, issued a notice to the petitioner under section 19-a of the assam sales tax act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the act'), stating that from the information in his possession he had reasons to believe that during the return period ending on 30th september, 1965, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 1991 (HC)

Basantlal JaIn and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

..... , -the firm shall apply for fresh registration for the assessment year concerned in accordance with the provisions of the said section.9. section 30 of the partnership act, 1932, inter alia, provides that a person who is a minor according to the law to which he is subject may not be a partner in ..... to become a member and, if he does so, he is personally liable for all acts of the firm from the time he was admitted to the benefits of partnership. so, from the language of section 30 of the partnership act, in our opinion, it is clear that, after attaining majority, a person can admit even ..... is void. the above section 30, however, permits a minor being admitted to the benefits of partnership. we may quote here sub-section (5) and clause (a) of sub-section (7) of section 30 of the partnership act. '(5) at any time within six months of his attaining majority, or of his obtaining knowledge ..... income-tax officer, by an order dated june 5, 1984, took the view that, under the provisions of the partnership act, 1932, a minor cannot be made a full fledged partner, the above deed of partnership is void in law and, accordingly, he refused registration to the firm for the assessment year in question, i.e ..... . on the other hand, dr. sarma, learned counsel for the assessee, has urged that, considering section 30 of the partnership act, 1932, and as the account of the partnership business was to be taken at the close of the accounting year, there is no illegality. according to dr. sarma, after attaining .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 2008 (HC)

Bina Lala Vs. Ahalya Lala and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... property is joint property of the plaintiff and the principal defendants or exclusively owned by the defendants predecessor mohan lala or a partnership property of defendant nos. 2 to 4 and if so, whether partition is barred under indian partition act?40. the learned trial judge, having considered the submissions and arguments put forward on behalf of the parties on the basis ..... themselves for convenience of joint family business, particularly to lessen payable amount of income tax. various matters were concealed and untrue declaration were given for creation of partnership. this partnership of three brothers was not acted upon and was used for the purpose of income tax only. the facts came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 and 2 after the ..... constituted by her brothers, namely motilal lala, monoj lala and deepak lala, the defendant nos. 2,3 and 4 in the related suit respectively and by the strength of the partnership deed they are having a separate business independent of joint family properties. according to the learned counsel, since the property is not a joint family property, the plaintiffs/respondents no ..... talkies from his own fund, that the brothers were separated long before, that plaintiff/respondent no. 2 left silchar permanently long before, that the joint amily business was imaginary, and partnership, m/s. lala brother was legally valid, and that there could not be any partition as there was no nucleas of joint family.35. the case of the above mentioned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 1958 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramchandra Lachminarayan

Court : Guwahati

..... tribunal was right in holding that there was a partial partition of the hindu undivided family and a valid partnership was brought into existence thereafter and in allowing registration to the respondent on that basis under section 26a of the indian income-tax act?' 2. the relevant facts stated may be briefly recapitulated. a hindu undivided family consisting, of lachminarain singhania, the ..... answered in the affirmative, then it follows as a matter of course that the assessee would be entitled to registration on the strength of the partnership instrument under section 26-a of the income-tax act. if the partnership is genuine, the partners as mentioned in the deed will be entitled to the benefit of the instrument during the assessment year under consideration ..... defining the shares of the partners. if the answer is in the affirmative, as in the above case the privy council did answer, then the partnership is doubtless entitled to registration under section 26a of the act, the above principle has been recognised and adopted in several other cases some of them almost parallel to the case in hand. in bansidhar dhandhania ..... the cases referred to above, i have already shown that objections like these have not found favour in pronouncing upon the validity of the partnership instrument for purposes of registration under section 26a of the income-tax act. in the circumstances, therefore, my answer to the question under reference is, as held by the tribunal, in favour of the assessee. 13. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 1963 (HC)

D. C. Chaudhuri and Another Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Shill ...

Court : Guwahati

..... manufacture and sale of black tea at the said martycherra tea estate under a partnership. the two petitioners were the sole partners of the firm. the partnership firm was served with a notice under the indian income-tax act by the income-tax officer and was assessed to income-tax for the assessment ..... in the result therefore the assessments made are illegal.i will like to add a few words regarding section 20a of the act. the martycherra tea estate formerly belonged to a partnership firm. it was sold to a company on july 9, 1953. under section 20a (2), where a person discontinues any ..... arose out of proceedings under the indian income-tax act. section 34 of the indian income-tax act, as it stood at that time was as follows :"if for any reason income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax ..... whole income will be regarded as agricultural income, inasmuch as the entire income derived by agriculture is defined to be agricultural income under the indian income-tax act, and thus the entire income may be liable to pay agricultural income-tax. the income-tax department, on the other hand, may ..... what the agricultural income-tax officer does under section 20 (4) is to quantify the amount of tax and thus the authorities under the indian income-tax act are of no assistance.the advocate-general, however, strongly relied upon the case of rajendranath mukherjee v. commissioner of income-tax. this case .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 1990 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajmohan Saha and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... (1) is fulfilled. it will be a partnership 'evidenced by an instrument'. 9. this view of ours gets full support from a number of decisions of different high courts which had interpreted the expression 'evidenced by an instrument' in the context of section 184 of the act or the corresponding section of the indian income-tax act, 1922, namely, section 26a. in this connection ..... , we may first refer to the decision of the calcutta high court in ramlal murlidhar v. cit [ 1930] 5 itc 150 where it was held that registration cannot be refused merely on the ground that the instrument of partnership does not contain ..... in itself the complete agreement constituting the partnership but ..... therewith subject to the modifications or changes made by such agreement. in such a case, both the agreement and the original deed of partnership would constitute the instrument of partnership within the meaning of section 184(1) of the act. we are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned tribunal was right in its conclusion that the assessee-firm was entitled to registration .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 2003 (HC)

Eastern Enterprises and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Taxes and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... . 1. heard dr. a.k. saraf, learned sr. advocate for the petitioners and mr. b.j. talukdar, learned govt. advocate, assam.2. the petitioners before us is a registered partnership firm, dealing in indian made foreign liquor, beer, rum, gin etc. the petitioner firm filed its return of turnover for the period ending 31.3.1993 under the assam finance (sales tax ..... stated above, we hold that the impugned order, whereby suo moto revision was entertained and the original assessment order was revised, was passed in violation of the provision of the act and hence, not tenable under the law. the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order passed by the deputy commissioner of taxes, guwahati zone-a, guwahati on 11.5 ..... suo moto revisional power of the deputy commissioner of taxes, guwahati mainly on the ground that no case for interference under section 36(1) of the assam general sales tax act has been made out.4. in the case of rajendra singh v. superintendent of taxes (1990) 1 glr 449, this court held that to invoke the suo moto power of ..... superintendent of taxes and the required document was submitted by them. subsequently, the deputy commissioner of taxes issued a notice under section 36(1) of the assam general sales tax act asking the petitioner to show cause as to why a suo moto revision in respect of the return for the period ending 31.3.1993 should not be initiated. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 2009 (HC)

R.S. Sodhi and anr. and Vs. Partha Pratim Saikia

Court : Guwahati

Reported in : [2009]151CompCas583(Gauhati)

..... within the meaning of this section.130. before proceeding further, it needs to be noted that unlike special penal statutes, such as, prevention of food adulteration act, essential commodities act, etc., the indian penal code does not make specific provisions for prosecution of a company or of the directors or managing directors of a company. can, in such circumstances, a ..... creation of such legal fiction of vicarious liability, the statute, as noted in maksud saiyed (supra) and s.k. alagh (supra), specifically provides therefor, whereas and the indian penal code does not contain any such specific provision making the director or the managing director vicariously liable for the offence of 'criminal breach trust', which their company might have ..... the legal connotation of the word 'whoever7 and it necessarily takes in corporate liability and includes any association of persons such as a partnership firm.143. i may, however, hasten to add that the foreign exchange regulation act, 1973, specifically provided, with the help of section 23c, prosecution for offences committed by companies. there is no such specific provision, ..... an offender, it uses the expression 'whoever' ; whereas, while referring to a victim, both section 405 as well as section 415 uses the expression 'person'. in fact, the indian penal code, when defining offences and prescribing punishments, has, generally, used the expression 'whoever' while referring to the offender and not the word 'person'. only some sections, such as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 1959 (HC)

Hardeodas Jagannath Vs. Income-tax Officer, Shillong, and Others.

Court : Guwahati

..... 26, 1940, a notification was issued under section 92(1) government of india act, 1935 extending the indian finance act of 1940 to that area. the returns were submitted by the assessee to the income-tax officer and the assessments were completed on march 9, 1941. the assessments ..... to furnish a return in the prescribed from. on the april 22, 1940, a notice under section 22(1) income-tax act was published in the newspapers requiring persons generally to submit the returns in the prescribed form. the indian finance act of 1940 had not been extended by any other notification up to that time to this partially excluded area. on may ..... federal court as to the validity of the notification issued by the governor and the applicability of the income-tax act to the excluded areas. one of the contentions raised was that the notification of may 26, 1940, by which the indian finance act was made applicable to the excluded areas was issued after the notices had been issued under section 22(1 ..... jagannath is a partnership firm carrying own business at mawkhar, shillong, in the district of united khasi and jaintia hills. by an order dated march 14, 1959, the income-tax officer, shillong, who has been amplitude as opposite party no. 1 to this petition assessed the petitioner under section 23(4) of the indian income-tax act (hereinafter called the act), for the assessment .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //