Madhya Pradesh Court January 1981 Judgments
Bhojmal and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC36(MP)
R.K. Vijayvargiya, J.1. By this reference under Section 44(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Board of Revenue, M. P., Gwalior, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court:(1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, sale of oilcakes amounting to Rs. 14,23,062 effected by the applicant to the dealers in Maharashtra and Madras States outside the State of Madhya Pradesh were sales of unascertained or future goods and as such covered by Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Central Act ?(2) If the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the subsequent sales of oilcakes fall under Clause (b) of Section 3 of the Central Act and were covered by the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Central Act and the State of Madhya Pradesh was competent to levy tax though no C form was obtained by the assessee in connection...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sanghi Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-1981
Reported in: [1982]134ITR623(MP)
Sohani, j 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal,Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s. 80J, the rate of 6% per annum cannot be stretched any further to curtail the amount of relief admissible and that the deduction at 6% per annum is admissible for a full year even if the undertaking has actually worked during the year for less than 12 months '2. The material facts giving rise to this reference asset out in the statement of the case, briefly, are as follows: The assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of bottling and selling of soft drinks, The assessee started production on February 29, 1968. While computing the deduction admissible to the assessee under Section 8...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Indore Iron Traders
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC375(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 Board of Revenue has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion :Whether Section 39(2) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act empowers the Commissioner of Sales Tax to revise an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 39(1) of the Act in case the order of the Deputy Commissioner is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue ?2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows : The assessee, a dealer in iron goods, was assessed to tax under the Act for the period from 1st January, 1960, to 31st December, 1960. Best judgment assessment was made by the assessing authority. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed. The assessee then preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 39(1) o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Lalchand Singhai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-06-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(MP)123; [1983]140ITR314(MP); 1981MPLJ354
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Wealth-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the CWT, referring for our answer the following questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that an order under Section 35 of the W.T. Act could not be passed in so far as there was no mistake apparent from the record ? 2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that a debatable point of law was involved and consequently no proceedings for rectification could lie ? 3. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order which was passed under Section 35 on the basis of retrospective amendments to Section 5(1)(viii) with effect from January 1, 1963, by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971 ?' 2. The assessee is an HUF. The relevant assessment year is 1965-66, the valuation date being 31st March, 1965. The assessment of the assessee under ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›