Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat guwahati Page 7 of about 76 results (0.129 seconds)

Oct 27 1989 (TRI)

income-tax Officer Vs. Gauri Kanta Kalita

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in : (1990)32ITD79(Gau.)

1. The first two appeals are by the revenue and the other two appeals are by the assessee. All relate to the consolidated order of the AAC by which he has partly sustained the order of the ITO. Briefly speaking, the facts and the background of the case are as under.2. For the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, the assessing officer discussed the facts in details. For the assessment year 1980-81, the return was filed on 1-10-1980 which was assessed under Section 143(1).Later on, the ITO had information that the firm M/s. Garui Kanta Kalita & Co. had income from Huller Rice Mill which was in the earlier years shown as the assessee's income in his individual capacity. The assessing officer completed that assessment at nil observing that the income actually belonged to the assessee in his individual capacity.The ITO, therefore, took action under Section 147(a) and issued notice under Section 148. There was no response from the assessee and no return was filed. The ITO issued notice...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 1989 (TRI)

Bhauram Jodhraj and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in : (1990)32ITD728(Gau.)

1. The cross objections have been filed by the assessee. In this connection, it may be clarified at the outset that against the order of the A.A.C. which is being impugned now, the revenue have already filed an appeal earlier. That appeal by the revenue was that the A.A.C. erred in allowing the assessee's claim for carry forward of loss though the return was not filed within the specified time. The Appellate Tribunal heard both the sides and sustained the order of the A.A.C. in allowing the loss to be carried forward. That was the only point of appeal by the revenue.2. The assessee did not file appeal on his own but after the appeal was filed by the revenue, the assessee as provided under Section 253(4), filed the present cross objections in which the assessee claimed full relief in respect of different expenses, like general charges, telephone etc. Hence, we take up the cross objections of the assessee for disposal. At the stage of hearing of the assessee's cross objections, the lear...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 28 1989 (TRI)

J.K. Borooah Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in : (1989)31ITD7(Gau.)

1. The appeals are by the assessee arising identical grounds of appeal, against the different orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The contention of the assessee is that the CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeals only on the ground that none appeared at the time of hearing. Against the penalty orders the assessee took up different appeals before the CIT (Appeals) who noted that the appeals were fixed on three occasions but the assessee did not attend on any date. The CIT (Appeals) observed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeals. He, therefore, dismissed the appeals for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1980-81 vide order dated 26-3-1987 in appeal Nos. Dita-6/85-86 and Dib-13/85-86. Similar orders were passed by the CIT (Appeals) in respect of other years under different sections. Hence these appeals by the assessee.2. None appeared at the time when the case is called for hearing. It is seen that subsequently a telegram has been received from the...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 1989 (TRI)

Bibijan Begum Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in : (1990)32ITD157(Gau.)

1. The appeal is by the assessee which is preferred against the order of the C.I.T.(Appeals) by which various claims of the assessee were rejected.2. In the assessment order, the I.T.O. mentioned that the assessee showed in the return an income of Rs. 21,670 which included salary of Rs. 3,600 and l/5th share of rent from multi-storeyed R.C.C. building known as Babi Market at Ganeshguri, Charali, Gauhati. The assessment was made under Section 143(1). Later on, the case was taken on scrutiny and the assessment was re-opened under Section 143(2)(b). The assessee claimed that she had one-fifth share only from the rental income. The I.T.O. pointed out that the assessee was assessed for the first time for the assessment year 1982-83 where her share was shown at l/3rd in the same building. The assessment year involved now is 1985-86. The I.T.O. pointed out that for the assessment year 1982-83, it was pointed out that the assessee along with her two children, namely, Md. Bakhtiar Ali Ahmad an...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1989 (TRI)

Joharmal Murlidhar and Co. Vs. Inspecting Assistant

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in : (1990)32ITD204(Gau.)

1. The second and third grounds of appeal by the assessee are not pressed by the assessee's learned counsel at the time of hearing.Hence, these are not considered.2. The point left for our consideration is that the C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in not considering all the facts of the case and also the written submission made before him and that the C.I.T. (Appeals) should have considered the order passed by the predecessor C.I.T. (Appeals) dated 28-7-83 whereby payment of Rs. 8700 was directed by the then C.I.T.(Appeals) to be considered as advance tax.3. The facts of the case was that the assessment was completed earlier by the I.A.C. (Assessment). The assessee moved the Commissioner of Income-tax, N.E. Region, Shillong under Section 264. Copy of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 264 dated 31-1-81 has not been placed before us. It appears that the Commissioner of Income-tax held the view that the payment of Rs. 8700 should not be treated as advance tax. That order ap...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 1988 (TRI)

George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in : (1989)29ITD154(Gau.)

allowed export market development allowance under r. 6AA for the asst.yr. 1981-82.Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's order allowing expenses to assessee on account of maintenance of agency and warehouses outside India was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue as rule 6AA was introduced w.e.f. 1-8-1981.Rule 6AA was inserted by the Income Tax (8th Amendment) Rules, 1981 with effect from 1-8-1981.The assessment year involved is 1981-82. The assessee's accounting year ended on 30-6-1980. It cannot therefore be said that the above rule 6AA would be applicable to the assessment year 1981-82 as being the case here. In that view of the matter, the Commissioner cannot be said to have acted without any jurisdiction or authority in coming to the conclusion that order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. It may be mentioned that after introduction of rule 6AA with effect from 1-4-1981, certain assessees may be entitled to such relief in respect...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 1988 (TRI)

Goyal Trading Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in : (1989)28ITD265(Gau.)

Appellate order disposing of substantial issues on merits in four five lines is liable to be set aside.The Income Tax Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,90,289 under section 40A(3) and Rs. 2,77,688 under section 68, apart from the addition of Rs. 42,098. True, the Income Tax Officer might have dealt with the points at length and exhaustively but it is equally incumbent on the part of the first appellate authority to deal with the matter properly with more attention it deserved, particularly when substantial grounds have been raised in which various points of controversy are very much at large. Thus, since the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is so short and cryptic, this part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dealing with the merits of the case is set aside for fresh disposal by him.Appeal (CIT(A)--JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)--Jurisdiction to entertain.Where income of assessee in the revised return exceeds Rs. 1 lakh, Commissioner (Appeals) has to entertain asses...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 14 1988 (TRI)

Meghalaya Road Carriers Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in : (1990)32ITD213(Gau.)

1. The first four grounds of appeal before us are not pressed by the assessee's learned counsel at the time of hearing. The only ground left for our consideration are ground Nos. 5,6 and 7. The 7th ground is general in nature, which requires no adjudication. In respect of ground Nos. Sand 6, we are to hear the parties and examine the facts. The CIT (Appeals) mentioned that the assessee has not preferred a separate appeal under Section 246(l)(j) of the Act. To understand the real controversy, we should narrate the facts of the case in brief.2. The assessment was made by the ITO under Section 144 as the assessee had not produced books of accounts etc. He took the status as URF as noted in the assessment order. He also passed an order under Section 185 in which he has noted that the assessee filed Form No. 11 A. But in the absence of books of account and also due to non-compliance of the assessee, the ITO was not satisfied that there was a genuine firm during the year. Registration was r...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 1988 (TRI)

Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Abdul Malik

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in : (1990)32ITD125(Gau.)

1. In these appeals by the Revenue relating to different assessees a common point has been raised by the Department. The contention of the Revenue is that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax erred in directing the Wealth-tax Officer to allow the entire tax liability without reference to the provision of Section 2(m)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act. The facts of the cases of the assessees are similar and identical. In the assessment order for the assessment year 1967-68 in the case of Shri Abdul Malik passed by the Wealth-tax Officer Under Section 16(5)/23/17, it was mentioned that the assessment was made originally and later on it was set aside by the A.A.C. and that the matter was to be taken up afresh. The assessment was accordingly completed as was done by the W.T.O. in the reassessment orders. In course of fresh assessment proceedings for all the years the assessee raised a claim that taxation liability should be allowed. The W.T.O.mentioned that on 27-8-1970 there was a...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 1987 (TRI)

income-tax Officer Vs. Tuli Veneer Plywood Industries

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in : (1988)24ITR345(Gau.)

1. This appeal by the department is directed against the AAC's order directing the ITO to allow registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1982-83.2. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a partnership firm which was evidenced by a deed dated 22-3-1982. It was recited in the deed that the partnership was formed by an oral agreement with effect from the 1st day of January, 1981 for carrying on business of manufacture of veneers used in plywood industry. There were five partners, having the following shares : The ITO found that on the date of commencement of the partnership business as also during a major part of the accounting year (1981-82 financial year), the partner at S1. No. (5) above remained a minor even though on the date the partnership deed was executed Km. Sangita Devi Chamaria was a major. The assessee's application for registration under Form No. 11 which was submitted on 24-3-1982 before the ITO was signed by all the partners including Km. Sangita Cha...

Tag this Judgment!


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