Madhya Pradesh Court July 1978 Judgments
Ude Singh and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-26-1978
Reported in: [1981]128ITR437(MP); 1978MPLJ731
G.P. Singh, Actg. C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, referring for our answer the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal was right in holding that no partnership, that is valid in law, came into existence and registration was rightly refused ?'2. There was a joint Hindu family consisting of Sardar Ude Singh and his two sons, Sardar Sant Singh and Sardar Manmohan Singh. The family carried on business in the name of Sardar Ude Singh and Sons. A partition took place in the family on 1st July, 1959. In this partition, the business carried on in the name and style of Sardar Ude Singh and Sons at Junnardeo came to the share of Sant Singh. The total assets of the business were determined at Rs. 79,432. After excluding ornaments of Rs. 1,700 and life insurance premium of Rs. 1,336, the balance figure of assets came to Rs. 76,396 out of which a sum of Rs. 76,185 Was introduced as capital in the b...
Tag this Judgment!Nemichand Ganeshmal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-24-1978
Reported in: [1980]124ITR438(MP)
G.P. Singh, Actg. C.J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, referring for our answer the following questions of law :' (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 levied, the penalty imposed under Section 271(l)(a) is legal ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances 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(l)(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 guilty or contumacious in delaying the filing of the return, the penalty imposed under Section 271(l)(a) was legal ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is legal to determine th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kanchanbai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR367(MP); 1978MPLJ77
Sohani, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter called the Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has referred the following questions of law to this court for its opinion:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was justified in reopening the assessment under Section 147(a) of the Act for any of the years under dispute ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material on record to justify the finding of the Tribunal for each of these years that the sums represented the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows : The asses-see was assessed as an individual deriving income from money-lending business. The relevant assessment years are 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59. For each of these years, the assessee was originally assessed on 30th May, 1960. At the time of original asses...
Tag this Judgment!Phoolchand Ramsahai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-21-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR631(MP)
Oza, J.1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, in accordance with the direction given by this court in Misc. Civil Case No. 311 of 1971, decided on November 28, 1972. The following questions have been referred :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the renewal of registration has been validly refused by the Income-tax Officer ? (2) Whether the refusal to renew registration was correct ?' 2. The reference arises out of the assessment for the year 1961-62. The assessee, M/s. Phoolchand Ramsahai, Neemuch, is a firm constituted of six partners, having one-sixth share each in the profits and losses of the business of the firm. It carries on business in groundnut and linseed. For the assessment year 1961-62, for which, the accounting period ended on Diwali, 1960, the assessee filed a return of income declaring an income of Rs. 8,441. The assessee also filed an application for renewal of registration under Rule 6 of the Indian I.T. Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Dhanbai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-1978
Reported in: AIR1979MP17; 1978MPLJ717
C.P. Sen, J.1. By this Judgment the connected First Appeal No. 88/1972 (Smt. Dinoobai v. State of M. P.) is also disposed of as identical questions arise in both these appeals. Though these 2 appeals arise out of 2 different suits by 2 sisters but the suits were consolidated and common judgment has been passed. These suits are for declaration under Section 11 (5) of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to have the orders passed by the competent authority set aside.2. It is not in dispute that late Cowasji, who died in the year 1948, owned 718.20 acres of lands in different villages of Murwara Tahsil of Jabalpur District. He left behind his widow Gulbai, 3 sons Timrasji, Bejanji and Dorabji and 2 daughters Dhanbai and Dinoobai. It is also not in dispute that they are Parsis and governed by the provisions contained in Chapter III of Indian Succession Act, 1925. Two Revenue cases Nos. 74 (A-90). B-III of 63-64 (State v. T. C. Bajan Mal...
Tag this Judgment!Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. Vs. H.A. Jhawar, Income-tax Of ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-1978
Reported in: [1980]123ITR831(MP)
Sohani, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.P. Nos. 204, 205 and 463, all of 1976.2. All these petitions under art. 226 of the Constitution are directed against the notices issued to the petitioner under Section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, hereinafter called the Surtax Act. Though in the petitions the petitioner claimed a number of reliefs, the only relief pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing was that the notices issued under Section 13 of the Surtax Act be quashed and that a writ of prohibition be issued restraining the respondents from proceeding further in pursuance of those notices.3. Before we deal with the particular facts of each petition separately, it would be useful to refer to certain common facts and questions of law arising in all these petitions. The petitioner is a public limited company carrying on business as manufacturers of rayon grade pulp, staple fibre, rayon plant and machinery and other chemical ...
Tag this Judgment!Balmukund Vs. Industrial Court and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-15-1978
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ78MP; 1979MPLJ356
J.S. Verma, J.1. The petitioner, Balmukund, was employed as a Security Guard in the Heavy Electricals Ltd., at Bhopal. He was served with a charge-sheet, dated 6.7.1966, the relevant extract of which is as under:You are hereby charged with the following acts : On 1.7.1966 at about 2-30 hrs. Security Guard Narbada Prasad Belt No. 201, while coming for duty, was suddenly manhandled from behind by you and your brother Babulal and one other, near primary School, Govindpura, D-Sector simply because of non-payment of interest on Rs. 50 loaned to him by you which was already repaid to you, and was heavily beaten by you with blows causing injury on right elbow and back, etc.On 1.7.1966 you were supposed to be on duty from 00 to 08 hrs. but you remained absent from your duty without any information. From your past record as per list attached it is evident that you are in habit of remaining absent from your duty without prior intimation, permission and sanctioned leave.Your above acts amount to ...
Tag this Judgment!Chunnilal and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR199(MP)
Verma, J.1. This reference has been made under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ' the Act '), to decide the following questions, viz.:' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the show-cause notices dated 23-11-1964 issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were invalid because they did not specifically mention the section of the 1961 Act, but mentioned the section of the 1922 Act under which the default in not filing the return of income was committed ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the subsequent show-cause notices dated 27-7-1966 issued under Section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were invalid as they did not specifically mention the section of the 1922 Act or of the 1961 Act under which the default in not filing the return of income was committed ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty could be legally levied for the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Shrigopal Rameshwardas Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR980(MP); 1979MPLJ446
J.S. Verma, J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is at the instance of the assessee referring to this court for its decision the following question :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Rs. 29,550 was liable to tax under the head 'Capital gains' and was not exempt under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee, a HUF, consists of Radheshyam Agrawal and his two minor sons. Radheshyam Agrawal was adopted by Smt. Radhabai, widow of late Shri Radhakishan Agrawal, on August 11, 1948, by means of a registered adoption deed. Radhakishan Agrawal had executed a will, whereby he had permitted his widow to make the adoption after his death. House No. 175, at Andherdeo in Jabalpur, admittedly, was owned by and was the property of the assessee, i.e., the HUF. Shrimati Radhabai, the adoptive mother of Radheshyam Agrawal, was also a member of the HUF. The said house No. 175 was being u...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›