Madhya Pradesh Court January 1982 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Badri Bholaram
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-27-1982
Reported in: [1983]143ITR905(MP)
Sohani, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, 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 Tribunal was correct in law in holding that even though the original authority completed the order levying the penalty within the limitation period prescribed in Section 275, he would have no jurisdiction to pass a fresh orders at this stage if the matter was remanded to him and, therefore, in not remanding the matter to the ITO for passing fresh orders Under Section 271(1)(c) in accordance with the provision of law ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the penalty order passed Under Section 28 altogether, especially when the provisions of Section 28(1)(c) of the Act of 1922 are in pari materia with the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Jawaharlal Daryavbuxmal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-21-1982
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(MP)282; [1982]137ITR54(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 order of the ITO reopening the assessment was justified within the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 147 of the I.T. Act '2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows :The assessee is an individual and the assessment years in question are 1964-65 to 1966-67. The assessee had disclosed that he had purchased a plot and constructed a residential house thereon and that the construction had commenced in the year 1963 and was completed in the year 1966-67. The assessee had further disclosed the details of construction and investment. No enquiry was made by the ITO about the cost of construction and the assessment was completed. Later on, the ITO referred the questio...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwarlal JaIn Vs. Bherulal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-1982
Reported in: AIR1982MP154
ORDERH.G. Mishra, J. 1. This is a revision by the defendant against the order dt. 4-9-1979, whereby the learned trial Judge has rejected his application for dismissing the suit brought by the non-applicant No. 1, Bherulal, under Order 21, Rule 63, C. P. C.2. Facts material for decision of this revision are as under: Plaintiff-non-applicant No. 1 is owner of the suit house, which was attached on 10-8-1971, in execution of a decree obtained by the defendants against one Hari Durga; the number of the execution proceeding being 255/70-71. The plaintiff submitted objection under Order 21, Rule 58. CPC, which was dismissed on 23-11-1977. Thereafter the plaintiff brought the suit giving rise to this revision under Order 21, Rule 63, CPC on 23-11-1978, for declaration to the effect that since the house in question belongs to the plaintiff, it is neither attachable nor saleable in execution of the aforesaid decree.3. In answer to the suit the defendant-applicant inter alia raised a contention t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shriram Prayagdas and Mahadeo Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-20-1982
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(MP)155; [1983]144ITR883(MP)
K.K. Dubey, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referring for our answer, the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payment of Rs. 9,328 in assessment year 1965-66 and Rs. 20,053 in assessment year 1966-67, towards income-tax arrears of M/s. United Transport Company is an allowable deduction in determining the business income of the assessee ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The assessee purchased a running transport business of United Transport Company, Damoh. There were arrears of income-tax due from the United Transport Company. In the previous years relevant to the assessment year 1965-66, the buses in the possession of the assessee were attached for payment of income-tax dues of United Transport Company. The assessee paid Rs. 9,328 for the release of the buses. Similarly, in the previous year relevant t...
Tag this Judgment!Uday Pratap Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-1982
Reported in: AIR1982MP173
J.S. Verma, J. 1. This is an application under Section 96 of the Criminal P. C. 1973, to set aside a declaration of forfeiture made under Section 95 of the Code, contained in the notification F. No. 41-5-80-X-I dated Bhopal, the 7th September 1980, published in the M. P. Rajpatra (Extraordinary) dated the 7th September 1980, which is as under :--'Bhopal, the 7th September 1980--Bhadra 16, 1902 F. No. 41-5-80-X-I--Whereas it appears to the State Government that- (a) Portions appearing at pages 15, 17 and 19 of 'Smaranika' issued by the late Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh Commemoration Samiti, Akaltara, District Bilaspur and edited by Shri Ram Adhir, published by Shri Uday Pratap Singh Chandel and printed at Gita printing Press, Raipur. (b) portions of the article written by Shri Satish Jaiswal under the caption 'Nagari; Kaam aur kaam-ki-batt' appearing at page 30 of the issue of weekly 'Raviwar' dated 10th August 1980, edited by Shri Surendra Pratap Singh and published by Shri Vashpaditya Ro...
Tag this Judgment!Ayodhya Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1983MP39
ORDERC.P. Sen, J.1. By this order connected Civil Revision no. 437 of 1980 (Tikaram v. Union of India) is also disposed of as it arises out of the common appellate order of the District Judge under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, affirming the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Act against the applicants.2. Applicant Ayodhya Prasad and applicant Tikaram are brothers and in occupation of plots, total area 10 square meters, near Railway Quarter no. 273-A-C and Railway Bungalow no. B-176 in Pachpedi, Jabalpur. The Assistant Engineer, Central Railway, Jabalpur by his notices dated 12-3-1980 asked the applicants to vacate their unauthorised occupation. The notices were not complied with. So the Divisional Engineer of the Central Railway, Jabalpur by his notices dated 20-5-1980 again asked the applicants to vacate the railway premises. Since these notices were also not complied with, the Divisional Manager (W...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Parmanand Bhai Patel and Smt. Jyotsnade ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1982
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(MP)337; [1983]144ITR871(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J. 1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 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 correct in law in holding that the rectification order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invalid and without jurisdiction ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that interest under Section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was also payable to the assessee on the last two instalments amounting to Rs. 5,90,000 even though they were paid after 1st March, 1969, i.e., after the last date prescribed under Section 211 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but within the financial year ending 31st March, 1969 ' 2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1969-70. The assessee paid advance tax in accordance with Section 211 of the IT. Act, 1961, on different dates as mentioned i...
Tag this Judgment!Amuldas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1982
Reported in: [1983]144ITR848(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referring for our answer the following question of law:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had concealed the income as the same was not included in the returns filed by the assessee and thereby confirming the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1972-73. The assessee during the the previous year relevant to the assessment year derived share income from three firms, namely, (1) M/s. Bhimandas & Co., Bhopal, (2) M/s. Karamchand & Bros., Bhopal, and (3) M/s. Moti Construction Co , Ahmedabad. The assessee also derived income of Rs. 300 from house property. On 20th August, 1972, the assessee filed a return through hisrepresentative, Shri P. B. Sharma, Chartered Accountant. In this return the assessee's income was declared at Rs, 3,432 consisting of income from house proper...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Synthetics Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1982
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT97(MP)
ORDERG.P. Singh, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a declaration that Rule 9-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in so far as it permits levy and collection of excise duty at the rate in force at the time of removal of goods, is ultra vires and void.2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner has a factory at Ujjain which manufactures nylon and polyester filament yarn from 1972. The products of the petitioner are subject to Central excise duty under tariff item No. 18 of Schedule I to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In 1972 the rate of duty as provided in tariff item No. 18 was Rs. 60/- per kilogram. By notification dated 17th March 1972, issued under Rule 8 of the Rules, partial exemption was granted and the maximum rate of duty payable on nylon yarn was fixed at Rs. 35/- and on polyester yarn Rs. 40/- per kilogram. This notification remained in force till 28th February, 1973 when ...
Tag this Judgment!State (Union of India (Uoi)) Vs. V.L. JaIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1982MP97
Oza, J. 1. This miscellaneous criminal case was filed by the applicant State against an order dated 4-8-1977 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Revision No. 36 of 1076.2. This petition was initially heard by learned single Judge of this Court who by his order dated 14-5-1981 observed that the complaint was dismissed because of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court and as the learned Judge felt that it needs re-consideration, the matter was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and, therefore, it has been placed before this Bench.3. Facts necessary for disposal of this miscellaneous criminal case are that a complaint (Criminal Case No. 2638/73) for certain contraventions of the provisions of the Mines Act. 1953 was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhindwara on behalf of the State (Government of India) by the Regional Inspector of Mines (now designated as Joint Director of Mines, Safety, Nagpur Region, Nagpur) against the non-applicant...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »