Madhya Pradesh Court March 1978 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agrawal Brothers
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR768(MP)
Oza, J.1. This is an application submitted by the CIT, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. The assessment year about which this application is made is 1961-62 for which the accounting period ended on 31st March, 1961. The assessee filed the return of his income declaring only Rs. 12,811. The ITO by his order dated February 26, 1966, determined the total income of the non-applicant-assessee at Rs. 1,16,494. It is alleged that notice under Section 22 of the Indian I.T, Act, 1922, was served on the non-applicant on June 20, 1961, and the return was due to be filed within 35 days thereof. The return, however, was ultimately filed on 21st December, 1962. The ITO by his order dated February 15, 1968, held that there was delay of 17 months in filing the return. He, therefore, issued a notice for showing cause for penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961. It appears that the non-applicant did not appear and no explanation was submitted. A penalty,...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Jeewa Khan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-1978
Reported in: [1978]42STC95(MP)
G.G. Sohani, J.1. By this reference under Section 44 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, hereinafter called the Act, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for our opinion :(1) The period of limitation for revision proceedings by the Commissioner under Section 39(2) being three years while the period for reopening an assessment under Section 19(1) is five calendar years, whether it is legally wrong to take up a case under Section 19(1) if it could be taken up under Section 39(2) as otherwise even though the three years' period may have elapsed from the date of the order sought to be revised, the limitation under Section 39(2) can be circumvented by the case being taken up under Section 19(1) ?(2) Whether an assessing authority is debarred from reopening an assessment under Section 19(1) on the ground of alleged defects in C forms since the assessing authority must be presumed to have scrutinised the C forms and found them in order at the time of original assessm...
Firm Gwalior Distributing Co., Lashkar and anr. Vs. Mrs. Kanta Gupta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-1978
Reported in: AIR1978MP199
ORDERH.G. Mishra, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the defendant against order dated 27-1-1978 passed by the Fourth A. D. J. Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 26-B of 1977 whereby amendment of the plaint, by deleting reference to Order 37, C. P. C. and addition of words in cause of action clause to the effect that the suit is also 'based on original transaction of loan, has been permitted.2. The facts as alleged are as follows: The plaintiff-non-applicant has instituted a suit on 18-11-1977 for recovery of loan of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- by way of interest. The suit is based on original transaction of giving and taking of the loan of 28th June, 1976. It is also alleged in the plaint that the Hundi was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in order to supply evidence of the aforesaid transaction of loan on 28th June, 1976. There is also an averment in the plaint that the suit is brought under Order 37 in summary procedure. On 12-1-1978 an amendment application was s...
Girdharilal Nanhelal and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1978
Reported in: [1979]44STC368(MP)
G.L. Oza, J. 1. This petition and Misc. Petitions Nos. 325, 326 and 327 of 1976 have been filed by the petitioners challenging the assessment orders for the years 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64. The question involved is identical and, therefore, this order will govern the disposal of all the four petitions.2. It is alleged by the petitioners that they are a partnership firm carrying on business at Burhanpur and petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are partners in the said firm. The firm deals in cotton, cotton-seed, cotton-seed oil and oilcakes. It is registered under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. According to the petitioners, they buy raw cotton 'kapaas', get it ginned and pressed into bales by others, who own ginning and pressing factories. The petitioners pay ginning and pressing charges to these factories and sell full pressed bales within the State and outside.3. The petitioner-firm has been assessed to pay sales tax both under the State Act and...
Gopal Das Mahore and ors. Vs. the Executive Magistrate
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ857
C.M. Lodha, J.1. These are two connected matters and raise identical questions and, therefore, we deem it proper to dispose them of by a single order.2. The short facts giving rise to these petitions are that the petitioners who are said to be members of Thela Khomdha Union, Gwalior, were arrested Under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the afternoon of February 14, 1978, for prevention of sabotage of public meeting and preservation of public peace and tranquillity at the site of the proposed High Court building at Gwalior. They were produced before the Executive Magistrate, Gwalior, for action Under Sections 107 and 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police also submitted an application to the Magis- trate for taking immediate action against the petitioners under Sub-section (3) of Section 116.3. The learned Magistrate, after perusal of the reports submitted by the police, recorded the following order the same day, i. e., 14th February, 1978, Under Sectio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›