Madhya Pradesh Court October 1981 Judgments
Subhashchandra Vs. Smt. Narbadabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1982MP236
B.C. Varma, J.1. The defendant/appellant appeals against the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondent for maintenance.2. The respondent/plaintiff Narbadabai sought to enforce her right of maintenance granted to her by Seth Kishanlal Jain who was the husband of appellant Gulabbai. Appellant Gulabbai died during the pendency of this appeal and is now reprcsenled by her legal representative. It is no more in dispute now that Narbadabai was the mistress of Kishanlal Jain. She came in the keeping of Kishanlal when she had already a husband living. Kishanlal executed an agreement dated 4-5-1966 (Ex. P/5) whereby he undertook to pay certain amount and articles of food and certain clothing to her during her lifetime and also declared that after his death his heirs would also be bound to maintain her in the same way. This maintenance was granted to her for her life. Accepting her claim under this agreement, the lower appellate Court while reversing the decree of the trial Court, has...
Tag this Judgment!Kirloskar Bros. Ltd., Indore Vs. Engineering Machinery Mart, Narsinghp ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1982MP75
H.G. Mishra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of return of the plaint for presentation to the Court at Narsinghpur competent to entertain the same, passed on 31-8-1976, by the Second Addl. District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 19B of 1975.2. No exhaustive statement of facts is necessary for the decision of this appeal. Suffice it to state that the plaintiff-appellant-herein brought the suit giving rise to this appeal on 18-3-1975, in the Court of the Second Additional District Judge, Indore, for recovery of Rs. 37,580/- on the allegations that the defendant-respondent herein was the authorised dealer of the plaintiff-company for Narsinghpur district, Madhya Pradesh. As such, the defendant was afforded the facility of purchasing goods on credit and the defendant had opened an account with the plaintiff-company. After giving adjustment to the amount paid by the defendant in the account up to 31-7-1974, from time to time for goods purchased on credit from the plaintiff c...
Tag this Judgment!Kaluram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR589(MP)
Shukla, J. 1. This is an application by the assessee under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, praying that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, be directed to state the case and refer to this court questions of law saidto be arising out of the Tribunal's order dated September 7, 1976, passed under Section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, partly rectifying their earlier order. 2. The assessee-applicant was assessed to income-tax in the status of, 'individual' for the assessment year 1971-72. The assessee had not furnished an estimate of advance tax in accordance with Section 212(3) of the I.T. Act. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 273(b) of the Act. In response to the notice issued by the ITO as to why penalty be not levied, the assessee pleaded that he had not committed any default as he had paid the advance tax. The ITO, on the basis of the record, found that the advance tax had not been paid and, therefore, levied penalty. 3. The assessee appealed before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sohanlal and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-22-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ654
Chandrapal Singh, J.1. The accused-appellants were charged with and tried for offences punishable Under Sections 148, 307/149 and 307/149 on two counts in their having, on 20-3-1978 at about 1-30 P. M. at Nagda while being armed with weapons like iron chains, rubber belts and sticks, formed an unlawful assembly whose common object was to murder Shantigopal (P.W. 2) and Raja-ram (P.W. 12) and in the prosecution of their common object, injured Shantigopal (P- W. 2) and Rajaram (P.W. 12) with such intention and under such circumstances that had they died, they (appellants) would have been guilty of their murder, before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain (in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 1978). The Additional Sessions Judge though has acquitted each of them of offence punishable Under Sections 307/149 Indian Penal Code on one' of the counts - regarding the injuries caused to Raiaram (P.W. 12, has held them guilty of offence punishable Under Section 323/149 Indian Penal Code for injuri...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.B. Tyres
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1981
Reported in: [1982]137ITR295(MP)
Shukla, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, stating the case and referring the same to us for opinion on the following question of law :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 48,361 out of the total amount of Rs. 55,291 received by the assessee as compensation was not liable to tax as a revenue receipt during the year 1975-76?'2. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in the purchase and sale of tyres. The assessment year in question is 1975-76, for which the relevant previous year was the year ending Diwali 1974. During the previous year the assessee's business premises were acquired for the purpose of construction of an overbridge at Siyaganj, Indore. The assessee received compensation amounting to Rs. 55,291 from the Government. The break-up of this amount was as follows :Rs.(i) Cost of structure acquired3,924(ii) Cost of the structure (which) remained after...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Pritam Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-20-1981
Reported in: [1985]154ITR133(MP)
Singh, C.J.1. This is a reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referring for our answer the following questions of law :'(1) Whether the order of the Tribunal that the penalty order was not passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation was correct in law ? (2) Whether the order of the Tribunal that reasonable opportunity had been provided to the assessee of being heard against the proposed penalty was justified in law ?' 2. The case arises out of imposition of penalty proceedings for the assessment year 1968-69. The assessment order for the year was passed on March 29, 1972. The order imposing penalty was passed by the IAC on April 30, 1975. The contention of the assesses on the point of limitation was that Section 275, as it stood before its amendment by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, applied and the order imposing penalty ought to have been passed within two years from the date of completion of the assessment proceedings, i'.e., within two year...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-1981
Reported in: [1987]166ITR26(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. The questions of law which we are required to answer in this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are as follows:' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in their conclusion that the M.P. State Electricity Board, the assessee herein, is ' a company, being a licensee within the meaning of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 ', specified in the proviso to Section 34(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that the assessee is exempt from providing and maintaining a development rebate reserve as required under Section 34(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing the claim of the assessee-Electricity Board to the allowance of development rebate amounting to Rs. 7,60,11,975 as admissible under Section 33(1)(b)(B)(iv) read with Section 34(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Liladhar Chhajuram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR416(MP)
Shukla, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench.2. The assessee is a dealer in sandalwood. For the assessment year 1966-67, he did not file his return of income voluntarily and the ITO issued a notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act. In response the assessee filed a return on January 8, 1969, showing an income of Rs. 7,000. The income was disclosed on an estimate basis on a turnover of Rs. 2 lakhs. The ITO did not accept the return of income and computed the same at Rs. 15,000. As the declared income was less than 80% of the assessed income, proceedings for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. The penalty proceedings were referred by the ITO to the IAC in accordance with the law then in force. The IAC imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,000, i.e., the amount equal to the concealed income. The penalty was imposed in accordance with the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) as amended with ef...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Kumar Gordhandas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR211(MP)
Mishra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the assessee, whereby the following question has been referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Trjbunal was justified in holding that the proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were validly initiated against the assessee in respect of the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70 ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on the business in adat. The firm is constituted of two partners, namely, Dineshkumar and Kamal-kumar. Originally, the assessment for the assessment years (for short, 'the A.Ys.') 1967-68 and 1969-70 were completed on a total incomes of Rs. 26,914 and Rs. 23,016 on Novembers, 1968, and July 27, 1970, respectively. While completing these assessments the ITO had allowed the assessee's claim for payment of interest amounting to Rs. 1,488 and Rs. 2,446 paid t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Marfatia and Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-1981
Reported in: [1982]136ITR159(MP)
Mishra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the department, whereby the following question has been referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the A.Ys. 1965-66, 1968-69 and 1969-70 is leviable for the delay of only 10 months relating to the default of notices under Section 148 and that no penalty is leviable for the default committed under Section 139 in the course of the original assessment proceedings, nor suchpenalty proceedings could be initiated at the time of reassessments for the above years ?'2. The reference has been made to us in the following circumstances: Originally, assessments of the assessee, M/s. Marfatia & Co., for the assessment years (for short A.Ys) 1965-66, 1968-69 and 1969-70 were completed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »