Madhya Pradesh Court November 1971 Judgments
Rajnandgaon Roadways Private Ltd., Rajnandgaon Vs. the Tax Officer-cum ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP87; 1972MPLJ274
Naik, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution whereby the petitioner a private limited transport company, operating stage carriages, challenges its liability, under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) to pay to the State Government, the passengers tax collected by it, for the period 1-2-1961 to 6-5-1962 and which it had failed to deposit into the Government treasury in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. 2. The only question that arises for consideration is whether a tax payable by a stage carriage operator under Section 6 of the Act in accordance with, the return submitted by It under Section 5 of the Act, which he had failed to deposit into a Government treasury within the time prescribed or ever could be recovered from it under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. 3. The question has been answered in the affir...
Tag this Judgment!Radheshyam Sharma Vs. Govt. of M.P. Through C.K. Jaiswal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972MP160; 1972MPLJ796
Raina, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Guna (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') is a financial Bank registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Under the bye-laws of the Bank there is a provision for constitutive a Managing Committee (Board of Directors) consisting of elected members and three members nominated by the Government. The elections were held under the bye-laws and the petitioner and non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10, 12 and 18 were duly elected as members of the said Managing Committee. The Managing Committee of the Bank took charge on 6-11-68. On 23-4-70 the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies gave a notice to show cause why it should not be superseded in view of the charges specified therein (vide Annexure 'A'). The Committee submitted a reply to the said charges vide Annexure 'B'. On receipt of the reply the joint Registrar passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Naubatram Nandram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR805(MP); 1972MPLJ324
Naik, Actg. C.J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'A', under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the applicant-assessee, Messrs. Naubatram Nandram of Bilaspur.2. The question referred to us for decision is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 79,000 or any part thereof was liable to be taxed as deemed profit under Section 10(2A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'3. The facts relevant for our purpose, as stated in the statement of the case, may shortly be stated as under :4. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The assessment year is 1958-59, for which the account year is Samvat year 2014, Diwali 1956 to Diwali 1957.5. The assessee carried on various' businesses. One of them was exploiting forests and selling timber extracted therefrom.6. In 1955 (Samvat 2010), the assessee obtained a long lease of a forest from the Raja of Dharamjaigarh. 'The consideration for the lease ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vrajlal Manilal and Company
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR799(MP); 1972MPLJ373
Naik, Actg. C.J. 1. This is an application by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act No. XLIII of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '), for directing the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions of law to this court for its opinion:'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether, on the basis of material on record and in view of specific opportunity given to the assessee to prove the amount as his income, could an inference of concealment of income be drawn or not ? (iii) Whether it was necessary for the department to prove by positive evidence the fact of concealment and no inference in that behalf could be drawn on the basis of assessment order and other facts and circumstances ?' 2. The facts relevant for our purpose may shortly be stated a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Imphalsha Manufacturing Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-11-1971
Reported in: [1974]33STC263(MP)
S.P. Bhargava, J.1. This reference under Section 44 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh. The question referred for our opinion by the Board of Revenue is as follows:Whether in making the best judgment assessment, a subsequent opportunity to show cause against the proposed best judgment estimate is to be given to the assessee over and above the one to be given to him to show cause against the proposal to assess him to the best of judgment.2. The facts giving rise to this reference may be briefly stated as follows: The non-applicant is a registered dealer engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of water for injections and some other medicines. The non-applicant started its business in 1964 and in its return for the period 25th November, 1964, to 31st March, 1965, it declared its turnover under the Act to be Rs. 57,275.39. Its turnover was determined by the assessing authority...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Imphalbs Manufacturing Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-1971
Reported in: 1972MPLJ181; [1972]29STC450(MP)
R.J. Bhave, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P., the Board of Revenue has referred for our decision the following questions:(1) Whether a dealer registered under Section 7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act will be deemed to be a dealer registered under Section 7(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act ?(2) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the penalty imposed under Section 18(6) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act read with Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act has been rightly set aside ?2. The answer to the second question depends on the answer of the first question. If the first question is decided against the assessee, the second question will have to be decided in the same manner.3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee carries on the business of manufacture and sale of water for injections as also some medicines. The assessee was registered under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and had also obtained registration c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Hirji Nainsee and Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-1971
Reported in: 1972MPLJ76; [1972]29STC365(MP)
R.J. Bhave, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P., the Board of Revenue has referred the following question for our decision:Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in treating iron baling hoops as falling within the scope of 'iron and steel' as defined in Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, and as such liable to be taxed at 2 per cent, up to 30th June, 1966, and 3 per cent, thereafter ?The assessee, M/s Hirji Nainsee and Co., Ujjain, uses iron baling hoops as packing materials for preparing cotton bales. Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, provides that the sales tax law of a State shall not levy on the declared goods a tax at a rate higher than 2 per cent, which rate was subsequently altered to 3 per cent. Section 8(2) of the said Act provides that the tax payable by any dealer on his turnover on the sales of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce shall be calculated at the rate app...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›