Madhya Pradesh Court December 1981 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.
Sukhdayal Pahwa Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR206(MP)
Shukla, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, referred the following questions of law for our opinion:'1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not under a legal obligation to obtain the sanction of the Central Board of Direct Taxes prior to the issue of notice Under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 150 of the I.T. Act override the provisions of Section 149 as well as Section 151 of the Act, and in the circumstances, whether the notice Under Section 148 of the Act was validly issued ' 2. The assessee for the assessment year 1959-60 had filed two returns one in the status of an ' individual' and another in the status of an HUF. The ITO framed two assessments. The substantive assessment was made in the status of an individual and a protective assessment was made taking the status of the assessee as an ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prem Syndicate
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1981
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(MP)301; [1983]141ITR290(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 questions of law to this court for its opinion : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice issued under Section 263(1) of the I.T, Act, 1961, met all the requirements of law and was a valid notice and, therefore, the CIT exercised his jurisdiction validly (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that proper opportunity of being heard was not afforded to the assessee (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 was void ab initio (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to direct the CIT to pass a fre...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Gulab Bai Mittal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1981
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(MP)295; [1983]141ITR755(MP)
Sohani, J.1. By this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 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 holding that the appeal before the AAC of wealth-tax was maintainable against the WTO's penalty order under Section 18(1)(a) even after the Commissioner of Wealth-tax had passed an order under Section 18B(4) reducing the penalty leviable ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows :3. The assessee filed voluntary returns of wealth-tax for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1973-74. As there was delay in filing the returns, the WTO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act and imposed penalty by his order dated December 7, 1976. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee preferred appeals before the AAC. The assessee also submitt...
Devilal Vs. Kinkar Narmadaprasad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1982MP45
ORDERM.L. Malik, J. 1. The question for consideration in this election petition is whethernon-joinder of Ramgir Goswami as a party to the petition, should entail its dismissal under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. Admittedly Ramgir Goswami had filed his nomination paper on 1-5-1980 which the Returning Officer, after scrutiny, had accepted. Ramgir Goswami later withdrew his candidature. The allegations in the petition are that Ramgir Goswami began supporting the returned candidate and had committed certain corrupt practices. Ramgir Goswami has not been made a party to the petition.3. It is settled law that the word 'candidate' as defined in Section 79(b) of the Representation of the People Act includes a candidate who has withdrawn his candidature, and that he would be a necessary party to an election petition if allegations of corrupt practice are made against him. Section 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act requires that such a candidate must be m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›