Madhya Pradesh Court October 1978 Judgments
Associated Commercial Engineers Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-1978
Reported in: AIR1979MP96; 1979MPLJ91
C.P. Sen, J. 1. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal under Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, against the dismissal of its application under Section 20 of the Act. 2. The plaintiff-firm is a registered Engineering Contractor at Tawa in Ho-shangabad district. It submitted tender on 4-11-70 for Group VI-B of Tawa Project at Tawa. The tender was accepted by the State Government on 22-12-70 to the extent of the works amounting to Rs. 40 lacs. The acceptance of tender was communicated to the plaintiff on 29-12-70 by the Chief Engineer. The contract was signed on behalf of Governor of the State of M. P. by the Chief Engineer at Tawa on that date. The work was commenced by the plaintiff in January 1971 and continued up to February 1972. Under Clause 3-3-29 of the contract, the Superintending Engineer, Tawa, was the person in charge of the project and his decision was final on all questions. However, if the contractor was dissatisfied with his order, he could give a notice in writi...
Tag this Judgment!Chimanlal Umaji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1978
Reported in: [1980]121ITR507(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. This order shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 219, 220, 221, 222, 237, 238 and 239, all of 1976. These are all applications made by the assessee under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961,2. For the assessment years 1961-62 to 1968-69, the assessee was assessed as an individual. The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee was previously a partner of the firm, M/s. Chimanlal Umaji & Sons. This firm consisted of the assessee and his two major sons. His minor son, Gulabchand, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. According to the case of the assessee, this firm was dissolved in the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 1961-62 and a new firm, by name M/s. Gulabchand Chimanlal was constituted. There were three partners in this firm, namely, Hemchand Tarachand, Pratapchand Laxmichand and Smt. Laxmiben. Laxmiben is the wife of the assessee, Chimanlal. Minor Gulabchand was also admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The f...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Kumar Singh Kasliwal Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1978
Reported in: [1980]122ITR151(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J. 1. This order shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 250, 252, 253, 254 and 255, all of 1976. These are all references under Section 27(1} of the W.T. Act, 1957.2. The assessee in Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 250, 251 and 255, all of 1976, is Chandra Kumar Singh, while in the other three Miscellaneous Civil Cases, i.e., in Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 252, 253 and 254 of 1976, the assessee is Yash Kumar Singh. Chandra Kumar Singh and Yash Kumar Singh are sons of Raj Kumar Singh. The relevant assessment years are 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61, and the relevant valuation dates for these three assessment years are October 23, 1957, November 12, 1958, and October 31, 1959.3. Raj Kumar Singh, father of the assessees, separated from a bigger HUF of which he was a member on 31st March, 1950. In this partition, Raj Kumar Singh acquired assets belonging to his branch. Raj Kumar Singh partitioned his HUF on 21st August, 1957. In this partition, both the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Omprakash Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR251(MP)
1. This is an application by the assessee under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are that in the assessment year 1951-52, the assessee was assessed as an individual. He was allowed a sum of Rs. 57,200 as business loss in respect of 369 shares on the ground that the market value of shares in the previous year had fallen. In the assessment year 1965-66, the status of the assessee was HUF. In the previous year, corresponding to this assessment year, the shares were sold for a sum of Rs. 2,04,225. The purchase price of the shares was Rs. 2,07,755. The ITO held that as the shares were sold really for the same price for which they were purchased, there was no loss and that the sum of Rs. 57,200, which was allowed as business loss in the assessment year 1951-52, should be taken to be 'deemed profit' under Section 41(1) of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal which was allowed by the AAC. But, in further appeal, the Tribunal upheld the view taken by the ITO....
Tag this Judgment!Kalani Udyog Vs. Income-tax Officer, M-ward
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR431(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, referring for our answer the following question of law :'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-firm is not entitled to carry forward and set off the unabsorbed loss of Rs. 60,419 of the earlier years against its income computed in the assessment year 1970-71 for the purpose of levy of tax on such income?'2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee, M/s. Kalani Udyog, is a registered firm. The relevant assessment year is 1970-71, for which the previous year ended on 31st March, 1970. In the course of assessment, the assessee contended before the ITO that it should be allowed to set off its losses for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70. This was negatived by the ITO. The assessee's appeal was also dismissed by the AAC. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.3. The relevant statutory provision is Section 75 of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Palwankar Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR768(MP)
1. This is an application under Section 26(3)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, for directing the Tribunal to refer a question of law to this court.2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee made a gift on 1st of February, 1965, in favour of his son of half portion of a house. The purpose of the gift, as mentioned in the gift deed, is for providing education to the donee. The portion of the house gifted was valued in the gift deed at Rs. 35,000. Before the GTO, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 5(1)(xii) of the Act. He claimed that, as the gift was for providing education to his child and as the gift was reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case, it was exempt under the said provision. By order dated 25th March, 1971, the GTO assessed the gift to gift-tax. There was an appeal against that order which was allowed by the AAC and the assessee was granted exemption under Section 5(1)(xii). In further appeal to the Tribunal by the CGT, the order of the AAC wa...
Tag this Judgment!Daryaobai and ors. Vs. Surajmal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1978
Reported in: AIR1979MP114; 1979MPLJ413
Oza, J. 1. This revision petition has been placed before us to answer the question : Whether the liability to pay arrears of rent by a 'debtor' as defined in the Adhi-niyam under a decree of Civil Court or otherwise, is included within the definition of 'debt' as given in the Adhiniyam and whether Section 7 (1) (i) of the Adhiniyam would be attracted in suits or execution proceedings instituted to recover such arrears of rent ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this question appear to be that non-applicant decree-holder had obtained a decree against the applicants for ejectment and arrears of rent on 30-11-1974. The applicants had filed an appeal against the judgment in the court of the First Additional District Judge, Indore. The Appellate Court granted a stay so far as the execution of the trial Court's decree for ejectment was concerned. So far as arrears of rent, no stay was granted. The non-applicant therefore filed execution against the applicants to execute the money decree. In the e...
Tag this Judgment!Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Throug ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1978
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT243(MP)
ORDERG.L. Oza, J.1. This petition and Misc. Petition No. 220 of 1975 have been filed by the petitioner challenging an order passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and the Superintendent Central Excise respectively. As both these petitions involve common grounds the present order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 220 of 1975. 2. 1 he petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and they have a factory at Indore where they manufacture hydrogenated oil commonly known as 'Vanaspati'. The Vanaspati so manufactured is subject to duty payable under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is alleged by the petitioner that duty is charged at the rate prescribed under Item 13 of the First Schedule of the Act. It is further alleged that the goods the petitioners manufacture are packed and sold in metal containers which are durable in nature and are returnable to the petitioners. 3. Before 1st March 1969...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanlal and ors. Vs. Rukhmanibai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-1978
Reported in: AIR1979MP74
Sohani, J.1. The following question has been referred to this Bench for opinion:--'Whether the act of a driver of a vehicle in giving lift to a person, in disregard of any statutory rule or prohibition, while driving the vehicle in execution of the owner's business, can be held to be the performance by the servant of an act for which the owner of the vehicle cannot be held vicariously liable?'2. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid question have been set out in the order of reference. It has been found that appellant No. 2 was employed by appellant No. 1 as a driver of his vehicle for the purpose of transporting goods from Udaigarh to Indore, that the accident took place while the vehicle was being so driven by appellant No. 2, that appellant No. 2 was not prohibited by appellant No. 1, from giving lift to anyone in the truck when the goods were to be transported from Udaigarh to Indore, and that the deceased who was the owner of the goods which were being transported from Udaigarh t...
Tag this Judgment!The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, M.P., Bhopal Vs. Kuber Sing ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-1978
Reported in: AIR1979MP26; [1979]118ITR379(MP); 1979MPLJ65
G.P. Singh, C.J. 1. This Is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referring to the High Court the following question of laws :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was in law justified in allowing deduction of the amount paid by the assessee as contribution to the Chief Minister's Drought Belief Fund by holding it as an admissible deduction under S, 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'2. The assessee, M/s. Kuber Singh Bhagwandas, is a registered partnership firm. The relevant year of assessment is 1969-70 for which the previous year ended on Diwali 1968. The question referred to us relates to the amount of Rs. 26,140/- which was in all paid by the assessee to the Chief Minister's Drought Relief Fund. The Tribunal held that the donations so paid qualified for being allowed under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as they were in the nature of expenditure wholly and exclusively for the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »