Madhya Pradesh Court March 1982 Judgments
Mahant Ishwari Sharan Deo Guru Ramcharandas Vs. State of Madhya Prades ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1982
Reported in: AIR1982MP177
Oza, J.1. This is a reference under Section 57 of the Stamp Act made by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh being the chief controlling revenue authority.2. This reference has been made under very peculiar circumstances. The proceedings started in Case No. 18-B/103 of 1975-76 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Collector Stamps), Bematara on a report of the Sub-Registrar dated 26-12-1975. The Sub-Registrar reported that the petitioner Mahant Ishwari Sharan Deo had undervalued a gift-deed executed in favour of Nimbark Sanskrit Vidyalaya Samiti. The deficit was estimated at Rs. 17,100/- and receiving this report, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order on 14-5-1976 accepting the report of the Registrar and directing fee party to be summoned and ultimately, on 26-10-1976 in the presence of the person who had submit-ed the document for registration, the Sub-Divisional Officer directed the payment of the amount by instalments of Rs. 2,500/- per month.3. Against this order of the Sub-Divi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Devilal Shankardayal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(MP)253; [1983]140ITR413(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, Indore, 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 the AAC had the power to entertain an appeal against the ITO's refusal to grant the benefit of registration under Section 184(7) and consequently in confirming the AAC's order ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly are as follows :The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. Registration was granted to the assessee for the year 1972-73, but the ITO refused the claim of the assessee for a continuation of the registration for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 on the ground that there was a delay in filing the declaration in Form No. 12. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee prefe...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ramsingh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1982
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC41
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against an award dated 8th August, 1978 made by the Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur.2. The facts briefly stated are that there was a collision on 19th March 1976 between two vehicles. One of them was MPW 4735, a bus belonging to the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The other vehicle was truck No. MPJ 2187 owned by Kuldeep Singh and driven by Harchand Singh. The Corporation's bus was driven by Suresh Chourasia. Ramsingh the claimant was a passenger in the bus. He was keeping his right hand on the window. In the accident the right hand elbow got badly injured. There were three fractures. Ramsingh remained in hospital for nearly one and a half months. Ramsingh lodged the claim for recovery of compensation against the Corporation, the Corporation's driver, the owner of the truck, the driver of the truck and the Insurance Company with whom the truck was insured. By the award the Tribunal award...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanpat Pitamberlal Patni Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(MP)286; [1983]144ITR874(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, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the application filed for fresh registration Under Section 184(8) due to change in the constitution of the firm in Form No. 11A under Rule 22(4)(ii) on June 30, 1969, along with the return for the assessment year concerned 1969-70 was well within time or not ? (2) If within time, was the registration of the firm validly refused ? (3) Whether Sections 184(7} and 184(8) are inter-dependent and whether in effect both grant continuation of registration for the subsequent assessment year by saving the nullifying effect of the proviso on filing a declaration when there is no change or application for fresh registration when there is change along with the return for the assessment year concerned ? (4) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, an appeal lies or not against the non-condonati...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Premlatabai and Smt. Sajjanbai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-1982
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(MP)188; [1982]137ITR329(MP)
Shukla, J.1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. Civil Case No. 101/80 (CWT v. Smt. Sajjanbai), as the facts stated and questions referred in both the cases are identical. Oar answer to the question referred to us in Misc. Civil Case No. 71/80 will, therefore, apply to the question referred to us in Misc. Civil Case No. 101/80 also.2. The assessee is a partner in a partnership firm, M/s. Mehta & Company, Petlawad. For the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxi) of the W.T. Act, 1957, in respect of her capital invested in the firm, M/s. Mehta & Company, Petlawad. According to the assessee the above firm was an 'industrial undertaking' and, therefore, the capital invested therein by the assessee was exempted.3. The claim was disallowed by the WTO on the ground that M/s. Mehta & Company did not carry out any processing and manufacturing activities. First appeal by the assessee before the AAC of wealth-tax was dismissed. The assessee filed second...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bombay Garage
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-1982
Reported in: [1984]57STC67(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. The question of law referred by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Board of Revenue) is as follows :Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the expression 'electric motors, refrigerators and allied machines' would include air coolers and whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside penalty under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act ?2. The assessee's registration certificate mentioned the following articles : 'Petrol, motor parts, refrigerators and allied machines w.e.f. 22nd August, 1957.Lubricants, greases, tyres, diesel engines, new cars and trucks, buses, electric motors, frigidaire parts.3. The assessee imported air coolers between 10th January, 1968, and 9th April, 1971, and issued declarations in C form. The assessing authority imposed penalty under Section 10A read with Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, on the ground that air coolers were not covered by the registration certificate of the assessee. The assessee's appeal was reje...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prakashchandra Agrawal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1982
Reported in: [1985]152ITR14(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, Indore, 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 remuneration of Rs. 18,000 paid to Shri Prakashchandra Agrawal, karta, was a permissible deduction from the income of the assesscc-HUF received from the two firms, namely, M/s. Nemar Construction Co., Khalghat, and M/s. Preconco, Indore, during the assessment year 1975-76 '2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, as set out in the statement of the case, are as follows ;3. The assessee is a HUF of which Prakashchandra Agrawal is the karta. The assessment year in question is 1975-76. During that year, the assessee-HUF claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 18,000 on account of salary paid to Prakashchandra Agrawal for the services rendered by him to the HUF for looking after t...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jeewandas Gyanchand
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1982
Reported in: [1983]144ITR881(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J. 1. This a reference made by the Tribunal as directed by this court in Misc. Civil Case No. 708 of 1972, decided on 4th May, 1978. The questions of law referred are as follows : '(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) were not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no material on record to show that the assessee was guilty of fraud or gross or wilful negligence ?' 2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1968-69. For this assessment year, the assessee returned an income of Rs. 24,397. The ITO rejected the accounts of the assessee and assessed the income at Rs. 35,913 on agreed basis. Thereafter, the IAC, to whom the penalty case was referred, imposed a penalty of Rs. 13,000 under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal, in the appeal filed by the assessee, deleted the said penalty. 3. As the income returned...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Engineering and Foundry Works Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and o ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1982
Reported in: [1984]57STC296(MP)
ORDERG.P. Singh, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 14th June, 1976, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Durg, and the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 18th May, 1977, passed in revision.2. The petitioner fabricates iron and steel goods which are used as spare parts in the Bhilai Steel Plant. The petitioner entered into various contracts with the plant for supply of fabricated goods for the period from 1st April, 1972, to 31st March, 1973. The petitioner did not file any return for the first and second quarters but it filed returns for the third and fourth quarters under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, J.958, In the assessment proceedings before the Sales Tax Officer, the petitioner showed sales of Rs. 2,10,416.62. The petitioner also disclosed that he received Rs. 2,36,100.44 as labour charges. The labour charges were said to have been received by the petitioner on the basis that the transactions relating...
Tag this Judgment!Bondal and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ607
M.D. Bhatt, J.1. This is the appeal of the six accused persons against their respective convictions and sentences. All the accused persons have been convicted and sentenced under Section 148 IPC. Then again some of them have been convicted and sentenced under Section 342 IPC and the rest - under Section 341 IPC. Conviction under Section 366, I.P.C. is only against Bondal, Bodram and Gimjarilal. The accused Bedram, has, however, been further convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 324 (354?) I.P.C.2. According to the prosecution, in the early hours of the morning of 24th Nov. 1976, prosecutrix Mst. Shantibai aged about 25 years and wife of Banshilal Satnami, had gone out of the village to answer the call of nature. On the way, the appellants-accused Bondal, Bedram and Gunjarilal caught her. bodily lifted her and took her to the house of Bondal where she was wrongfully confined and was not allowed to move out. The appellant-accused Bedram attempted to outrage her modesty du...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »