Madhya Pradesh Court May 1978 Judgments
Ramaniwas Singh and ors. Vs. Sheomangal Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1978MP237
A.P. Sen, C.J. 1. This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent by the plaintiff is directed against a judgment of Bishambhar Dayal, C. J., dated 14-4-1971, affirming the judgment and decree of the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Satna, dated 11-11-1965, setting aside the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Class II, Satna, dated 17-4-1961, and dismissing the plaintiff's suit based on title for possession, of sir lands bearing khasra No. 332, area 11-64 acres, and khasra No. 551, area 0.60 acre, total area 12.24 acres, situate in village Dengrahat.2. The plaintiff, Lal Rangnath Singh was the ex-Jagirdar of Dengrahat in the erstwhile State of Vindhya Pradesh. He created a usufructuary mortgage of the suit lands by executing a registered mortgage-deed, dated 10-5-1951, in favour of the defendant, Sheo Mangal Prasad, to secure a loan of Rs. 1.800. The Jagir was resumed by the then State Government of Vindhya Pradesh under the provisions of the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs and Land...
Tag this Judgment!Nathuram Kapoor Vs. Income-tax Officer, 'B' Ward and Ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-1978
Reported in: [1979]120ITR257(MP)
A.P. Sen, C.J.1. This is a writ petition by Nathuram Kapoor to quash the notice issued by the ITO, 'B' Ward, Indore, dated March 29, 1973, under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for reopening of his assessment for the assessment year 1956-57.2. The assessee is a wholesale dealer in cloth and yarn. For the assessment year 1956-57, the accounting year of which ended on 31st March, 1956, the petitioner was assessed on a total income of Rs. 33,077 under Section 23(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, as per return filed by him. Along with the return, the petitioner filed profit and loss account. The ITO, 'A' Ward, Indore, by his order of assessment dated January 15, 1957, accepted the return stating that there was all round improvement in results due to the improved tone of the market. It appears that the attention of the ITO was not drawn to the fact that there was a cash credit entry in the books of account for that year showing a deposit by Capt. Narendra-singh Motilal Bhandari to the tun...
Tag this Judgment!Manaklal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-04-1978
Reported in: [1980]122ITR894(MP)
Vyas, J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 212 of 1976 (Manaklal v. CIT), 213 of 1976 (Manaklal v. CIT), 214 of 1976 (Manaklal v. CIT) and 215 of 1976 (Manaklal v. CIT).2. As per orders passed in Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 145 of 1971 (Mankalal v. CIT), 146 of 1971 (Manaklal v. CIT), 147 of 1971 (Manaklal v. CIT), 148 of 1971 (Manaklal v. CIT) and 149 of 1971 (Manaklal v. CIT),the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court:'(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Shri Jagmohandas, the minor, is only bena-midar of his father, Manaklal ? (2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the share income of the minor, Jagmohandas, from the firm of M/s. Manaklal Gordhandas be clubbed in the income of his father, Manaklal, who is not a partner in the said firm ?' 3. Fact...
Tag this Judgment!Kantibai Vs. Kamal Singh Thakur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1978MP245; 1978MPLJ633
Verma, J. 1. By our order dated 13-4-1978, we have allowed the application made by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of the delay in filing this appeal. While doing so, in that order we had stated that the reasons for holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies also to appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No, 68 of 1976), will be given later. Accordingly, we are now stating the reasons for taking this view.2. Shri V.S. Shroti, learned counsel for the respondent, placing reliance on Hukumdev Narain v. Lalit Narain, AIR 1974 SC 480 contended that the different limitation of thirty days prescribed in Sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as a result of the Amendment Act No. 68 of 1976, excluded the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1%3 to appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by virtu...
Tag this Judgment!Ramlal Ramgopal Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-1978
Reported in: [1982]134ITR338(MP)
Verma, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), made at the instance of the assessee by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, to answer certain questions said to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated April 20, 1972, in ITA No. 256 (Nag.)/69-70. These questions are the following, viz: '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when interest under Clause (iii) of the proviso to Section 139(1) was charged the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(a) is legal (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, when the assessee had filed the return of income within the time allowed under the provisions of Section 139(4), the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(a) was legal (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the departmental authorities had not found that the assessee's conduct was contumacious in delaying the filing of the return, the penalty...
Tag this Judgment!RamnaraIn Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-1978
Reported in: [1982]134ITR347(MP)
Verma, J. 1. For the reasons stated in the order delivered by us today in Misc. Civil Case No. 728 of 1972 (Ramlal Agarwal v. CIT) (see p. 342 supra), we answer the reference as follows : Answer to questions No. 1 & 5: They are essentially one and the same question ; question No. 5 is only a different form of question No. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding that the assessee did not have a reasonable cause for not furnishing the return of income within the time allowed, is a finding of fact and on that finding the penalty imposed under Section 271(l)(a) of the Act was legal. Answer to question No. 2: The penalty levied under Section 271(l)(a) on the assessee, a partner of the firm, whose only income was the share income from the firm, is legal when a penalty under Section 271(l)(a) has also been levied on the firm. Answer to question No. 3: Imposition of penalty under Section 271(l)(a) is legal when interest under Sub-clause (iii) of the prov...
Tag this Judgment!Ramlal Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-1978
Reported in: [1982]134ITR342(MP)
VERMA J. - These are two references made at the instance of the assessee under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to answer certain common questions which are said to arise out of two similar orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in I.T.A. No. 257 (Nag)/69-70 dated April 20, 1972, and I.T.A. No. 263 (Nag)/69-70 dated April 21, 1972. The common questions referred by these two references to this court are as follows:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee did not have a reasonable cause for furnishing the return of income within the time allowed under section 139(1) (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) is legal when a penalty under section 271(1)(a) was also levied on the firm, in which the assessee was a partner, treating it as an unregistered firm and when the assessees only share was the share in the firm (3) Whet...
Tag this Judgment!Mukhi Mulchand Sitaldas Vs. Commissioner of Income - Tax, M. P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-02-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR227(MP)
A. P. SEN C.J. - This is an application under section 66(2) of the Indian income-tax Act, 1922, by the assessee, for requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, to refer a certain question of law said to arise out of its order in Income-tax Appeal No. 16572 of 1966-67, dated May 30, 1970, to the High Court for its opinion, viz. :'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, registration was rightly refused under rules 2 and 6B of the Income-tax Rules ?'Here, by this application under section 66(2) of the Act, the assessee had tried to introduce various other questions; but it is not necessary for us to deal with such additional questions.The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, found that the partnership styles as 'M/s. Mukhi Mulchand Sitaldas, Chakarbhata', was not a genuine firm and, therefore, no registration could be granted under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Whether a partnership is genuine and ac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›