Madhya Pradesh Court March 1970 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Pram Dutt Ahuja Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1970
Reported in: [1970]78ITR530(MP)
Naik, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee in pursaunce of an order of this court in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 196 of 1966, decided on September 26, 1968.2. The assessee is an individual who, in the relevant year, was the managing director of 'Ramkrishna Besan and Flour Mills Ltd.' The assessment year in question is 1957-58, the corresponding previous year being the year ending on March 31, 1957.3. Smt. Gyan Devi is the wife of the assessee. In the relevant year, she received dividend amounting to Rs. 2,600 on the shares held in her name of the value of Rs. 20,000 in the Ramkrishna Besan and Flour Mills Ltd. These shares were acquired by her in earlier years. She also received interest amounting to Rs. 600 on a fixed deposit, which was made on April 14, 1955, in the aforesaid mills. She filed separate return of her income for the assessment year 1957-58, showing the aforesaid items as her income in the previous ye...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Seth Kirodimal Charity Trust
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1970
Reported in: [1971]82ITR670(MP); 1970MPLJ688
Naik, J.1. As directed by this court in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 247 of 1965, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, has, under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), referred the following two questions for decision to this court;'1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the incomeof Rs. 5,31,584 from hessian and money-lending business was entitled toexemption under Section 4(3)(i) itself? 2. If the income was not so exempt, whether under proviso (b) to Section 4(3)(i) it could be included in the total income of the assessee or could be exempted from taxation under the proviso ?' 2. The facts relevant for our purpose, as appearing from the statement of the case, may shortly be stated as follows:The assessee is Seth Kirodimal Charity Trust which was created under a trust deed dated May 13, 1946, by Seth Kirodimal. The objects of the trust are charitable, namely, establishing and maintaining hospitals, temples, dha...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, M.P., Nagpur and Bhandara at Nagpur Vs ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-1970
Reported in: AIR1971MP29; [1971]81ITR495(MP); 1970MPLJ699
Naik, J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 for a direction requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated 22-1-1965. The questions of which reference is sought are:--'A. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 28(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922? B. Whether the finding in the assessment proceedings that the cash credit of Rs. 12,409/- represented the income of the respondent, was prima facie enough to establish the said amount as his income; and the respondent having adduced evidence and failed to establish his claim or any other possibility, the only inference possible is that he has either concealed his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars? C. Whether positive evidence for 'concealment or furni...
Smt. Krishnabai Babulal Mishra Vs. Smt. Laxmibai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-1970
Reported in: AIR1970MP280; 1970MPLJ674
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This reference has been made by Bhave, J. in the following circumstances. The appellant brought a suit against the respondent for ejectment under Section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act), on the ground that the suit accommodation had become unsafe for human residence, unless extensive repairs were effected; that the suit accommodation was required for the use of some relations of the plaintiff; that the defendant had sublet the suit premises; and that the defendant had caused substantial damage to the premises let out. The suit was resisted by the defendant.The trial Court dismissed it holding that not one of those grounds was made out.2. The plaintiff appealed. At her instance, the first appellate Court struck out the respondent's defence under Section 13(6) of the Act. However, the first appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal because she had not established any one of the grounds under Section 12 of the Act. The ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Navnitlal M. Mehta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-1970
Reported in: [1970]77ITR990(MP); 1970MPLJ573
Naik, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh,2. The question referred to this court for decision is:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax authorities were justified in imposing a penalty on the assessee under Section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ?'3. The facts are in a narrow compass and may shortly be stated as follows :The assessee is an individual. The assessment for the year 1957-58 was originally made on January 17, 1958. Subsequently, during wealth-tax proceedings for the same year, it was found that as per net wealth admitted by the assessee, he had 5991/2 tolas of gold as on March 31, 1957, which was valued at Rs. 45,050. The possession of this gold had at no time previously been disclosed by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings against the assessee under Section 34(1)(a) of the Act for reassessing the alleged escape...
V. S. Malhotra Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M. P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR771(MP)
PANDEY J. - As directed under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, has referred to this court for its opinion the following question of law :'Whether for the concealment of income for the assessment year 1958-59 a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be validly imposed on the assessee ?'The material facts giving rise to this reference are these. The relevant assessment year is 1958-59, the corresponding account year being the one ending on March 31, 1958. The assessee is a practicing advocate who takes up income-tax and sales tax cases. For the relevant account year he showed by estimate his income to be Rs. 5,000. He claimed that he had not maintained any account. The Income-tax Officer, who completed the assessment on March 29, 1963, found upon a consideration of the evidence that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income. Since the minimum penalty leviable in this case exceeded Rs. 1...
Girdharilal Nannelal Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1970
Reported in: 1970MPLJ693; [1971]27STC316(MP)
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J. 1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Case. No. 14 of 1968 (Girdharilal Nannelal, Burhanpur v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh). These are two references under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. Some questions have been referred to us by the Board of Revenue in both these cases. The assessee in both these cases is a firm 'M/s. Girdharilal Nannelal' of Burhanpur, which deals in cotton and cotton seeds. Two periods are involved in these references. The first period is from Diwali of 1950 to Diwali of 1951 and the second period is from Diwali of 1951 to Diwali of 1952. Since some questions of fact and law are common between the two periods, both these cases were dealt with by the Board of Revenue together and referred by a common order making a common reference. The questions that have been referred to this court are as follows:--(1) (a) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, M.P., Nagpur and Bhandara, Nagpur Vs. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1970MP286; [1970]78ITR209(MP); 1970MPLJ564
Naik, J. 1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax The questions referred to us for decision are:(1) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the overhead expenses under the heads of Salaries and Travelling expenses of general staff. General charges. Legal expenses, postage, registration fee, etc., Directors' fees and travelling expenses and Managing Agents' office allowance incurred by the assessee could be apportioned between agricultural and business activities of the company and were not admissible as deductions in their entirety in computing the income of the company?' (2) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the overhead expenses under the heads Salaries of general staff, Provident fund. Directorial expenses. Managing Agents' office allowance and Managing Agents' commission on net profit incurred b...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Mohammad Rasul of Panna
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1970
Reported in: 1970MPLJ426; [1970]26STC202(MP)
ORDERShiv Dayal, J.1.This is a reference under Section 44 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act), at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax.2. M/s. Mohammad Rasul of Panna (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) had taken a lease in Panna district for shallow mining. The lease was granted under the 'rules for the grant of annual licence for shallow mining for diamonds in Panna district'. The assessee was a lucky finder of a big diamond which has since come to be known as 'Vijay diamond'. It is said that next to koh-i-noor this was the biggest diamond ever found. When sold by public auction, it fetched Rs. 4,12,163. After deducting the royalty due to the Government under the rules, the balance was paid to the assessee. The sales tax authorities initiated proceedings for assessing sales tax. The assessee contended that he was not a 'dealer', nor was there any 'sale' of such a nature as to create the liability for payment of sales tax.3. Both these c...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Basantilal Banarasidas
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC476(MP)
ORDERBishambhar Dayal, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act at the instance of the sales tax department. The only point in this case is whether the assessee, while purchasing raw cotton from the market on behalf of the mills and thereafter getting it ginned and pressed and then forwarding it to the mills, was acting as a principal dealing with the goods on his own behalf and was, therefore, a dealer in respect of those articles, or was acting merely as an agent on behalf of the mills and was, therefore, not a dealer, Two questions have been referred to this court, which are as follows:(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee was a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act in respect of the turnover amounting to Rs. 13,96,775-9-0? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case no taxable event occurred in the hands of the assessee in respect of the said sum of Rs. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »