Madhya Pradesh Court March 1978 Judgments
Satyapal Anand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1978
Reported in: AIR1979MP6; 1978MPLJ727
Oza, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the State Government dated 9-10-1973 refusing to exempt the petitioner from the operation of the Levy Order. 2. According to the petitioner Levy Order does not apply to the petitioner as he does not grow wheat (food stuff) but only grows wheat seed which is not fit for human consumption and is not fit for distribution to the general public. 3. According to the petitioner he has a farm in village Ghata Billod where he is engaged in production of seed and he is specially busy in producing wheat-seed. It is also alleged that the petitioner has been recognised as the seed producer and consequently he has represented India as an Indian Delegate in the International Meet. He also alleges that he also associated in Indian Associations including Indian Society of Seed Techonolgy and also Indian Agricultural Research Institute. He has also alleged that he is one of the pioneers in wheat seed of new varieti...
Tag this Judgment!Nandram Heeralal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1978
Reported in: AIR1978MP209
Oza, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the two appellants parents of deceased Santoshkumar, who died as a result of an accident on the Bombay Agra Road between Mhow and Manpur by a military vehicle driven by respondent No. 2 an army employee.2. It was alleged by the appellants that they are residents of village Gawli Palasiya which is situated on the left side of the road while going towards Bombay. It was alleged that at the time of the incident this boy Santoshkumar who was of about six years of age was standing on the left side of the footpath by the side of the road. At that time an army vehicle of the College of Combat Mhow which was being driven by respondent No. 2 was coming from Manpur and was being driven at a in gh speed and in a negligent manner. This vehicle collided against the boy standing on the side of the road. After receiving injuries as a result of this accident the boy was taken to the hospital where he ultimately died.3. In the joint written-statement filed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chichli Brass Metal Workers Co-op ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR720(MP)
G.P. Singh, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of Misc. Civil Case No. 225 of 19.72 and Misc. Civil Case No. 233 of 1973.2. These are references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the department. Misc. Civil Case No. 225 of 1972 is a consolidated reference relating to assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66. Misc. Civil Case No. 233 of 1973 relates to the assessment year 1966-67. The question of law referred to the High Court in both the references is identical. It is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it can be said that the assessee-society was engaged in 'cottage industry' and that the income from manufacture and sale of brass utensils was exempt under section 81(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '3. The facts found are that the assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The society is assessed in...
Tag this Judgment!Rajnandgaon Roadways (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-1978
Reported in: 1978MPLJ530
Singh, J.1. This is a consolidated reference for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee. The following question of law has been referred for our answer :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and keeping in view the proviso to section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for development rebate for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 on the cost of new road transport vehicles purchased before April 1, 1960?'2. The assessee purchased new transport vehicles before 1st April, 1960, and claimed development rebate under section 10(2)(vib) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The claim for development rebate was refused by the income-tax authorities relying on the proviso which was added to the section by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1960, with effect from 1st April, 1960....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Jugalkishore Badriprasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC501(MP)
A.P. Sen, C.J.1. These are two references under Section 44 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, referring certain question of law, arising out of its composite order in Appeal No. 101-IV of 1969 (State) and Appeal No. 102-1V of 1969 (Central) dated 20th March, 1970, pertaining to the period from 31st July, 1964, to 31st March, 1966, to the High Court for its opinion, namely:Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the drying of tendu leaves and packing in bundles does not involve any manufacturing process ?2. The assessee, M/s. Jugalkishore Badriprasad, Bankatnagar, is a dealer in tendu leaves. He has been purchasing tendu leaves from the State Government in the forest, as well as from the cultivators, and selling the same after drying and packing them in bundles.3. The short question before the Board of Revenue was whether the process of drying of ten...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Rice Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR817(MP)
A.P. Sen, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, at the instance of the assessee, referring certain questions of law said to arise from its order in Income-tax Appeal No. 21181 (Bom) of 1967-68, dated May 14, 1971, to the High Court for its opinion. The questions are:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest under the proviso to Section 139(1) is imposable for assessment year 1962-63?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was justification in law for the Commissioner to direct the Income-tax Officer by an order under Section 263(1) to levy interest under the proviso to Section 139(1) when the Income-tax Officer had not levied any such interest at the stage of making the assessment under Section 143(3) ?'2. The assessee, M/s. Jagdish Rice Mills, Dhamtari, which is a registered firm, derives income from rice milling business. For...
Tag this Judgment!Rajnandgaon Roadways (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M. P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-30-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR291(MP)
SINGH J. - This is a consolidated reference for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee. The following question of law has been referred for our answer :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and keeping in view the proviso to section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for development rebate for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 on the cost of new road transport vehicles before April 1, 1960 ?'The assessee purchased new transport vehicles before 1st April, 1960, and claimed development rebate under section 10(2)(vib) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1960-61 and 1961-62. The claim for development rebate was refused by the income-tax authorities relying on the proviso which was added to the section by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1960, with effect from 1st April, 1960. The proviso re...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotalal Keshavram Vs. Commisioner of Income-tax, M. P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR347(MP)
A. P. SEN C.J. - This is a composite reference under s. 66(1) and s. 256(1) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the Income-tax Act, 1961, respectively, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, at the instance of the assessee, requiring certain qyestions of law, said to arise from its orders in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 521 of 1968-69, 18691 and 18692 of 1966-67, 9688 and 19396 of 1967-68 dated March 31, 1971, pertaining to the assessment years 1959-60 to 1962-63 to the High Court for its opinion, namely :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that interest amounts of Rs. 31,447, Rs. 10,833, Rs. 19,200, Rs. 30,141 and Rs. 30,343 for the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 (two assessments), 1961-62 and 1962-63, respectively, charged on the debit balances in the accounts of two of the partners in the books of the firm constituted taxable income of the assessee (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumst...
Tag this Judgment!Amritlal Somabhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR833(MP)
A.P. Sen, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee by the Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, referring certain questions of law said to arise from its order in Income-tax Appeal No. 12152 of 1965-66, dated July 8, 1970, pertaining to the assessment year 1959-60, to the High Court for its opinion, namely: '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,penalty under Section 271(1)(a) is imposable on the assessee who was a partner ofa registered firm on which also a separate penalty under Section 271(1)(a) wasimposed (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a penalty less than 2% of the tax for each month of default is imposable in law when the return of income was filed in response to a notice issued under Section 22(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 ?' 2. The assessee is a partner in a registered firm styled 'M/s. Chhotalal Keshavram, Rajnandgaon'. In the assessment year 1959-60, the relev...
Tag this Judgment!Pooranchand Vs. the Idol, Shri Radhakrishnaji and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1979MP10; 1978MPLJ660
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is a defendant's first appeal arising out of a suitfor declaration to the effect that the idol, Shri Radhakrishanji, installed in the temple, is the owner of the suit property, bearing Municipal No. 22/163, described in para 11 of the plaint. 2. The plaintiff's case, as set out in the plaint, is that one Seth Chhatrapal constructed a temple near Naka Chandrabadni Road, Lashkar, and installed in it the idol of Shri Radhakrishanji in the year 1934. It is further alleged that for the maintenance and upkeep of the temple some residential apartments and shops were also constructed near it so that the expenses for the 'Seva Pooja' of the idol may be defrayed from their income. It was stated that the temple is Debuttar and the property in question is Debuttar property. The plaintiff further alleges, that Seth Chhatrapal had no issue and, therefore, he executed a will on 26-1-1944, whereby he bequeathed his property to Pooranchand, defendant No. 1, grandson of his brothe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »