Madhya Pradesh Court March 1982 Judgments
Omprakash and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(MP)129; [1983]144ITR247(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 23rd December, 1974, passed by the Additional District Judge, Seoni, dismissing Civil Suit No. 3-A of 1967 for a declaration that houses Nos. 69 and 40, situated in Budhwari Ward, Seoni, are not liable to be attached or sold for the income-tax dues against the HUF, Shivnarayan Prabhudayal, and for an injunction restraining the Union of India from proceeding against the houses to recover the said dues.2. It is not in dispute that an HUF was being assessed in the name of Shivnarayan Prabhudayal right from 1945 under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. This HUF consisted of Prabhudayal, his wife, Kesarbai, and two sons, Harishchandra and Rameshchandra. Shivnarayan was the father of Prabhudayal. The family owned immovable properties including the two suit houses at Seoni and agricultural lands. It also carried on business in the name of Shivnarayan Prabhudayal. The said HUF was assessed for the assessment ye...
Tag this Judgment!Shikharchand JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1982
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(MP)70; [1983]140ITR552(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J. 1. The question of law referred in this reference under Section 256 of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is as follows: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is justification in law to hold that the applicant is not entitled to exemption under Section 23(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The reference relates to assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73. The facts found by the Tribunal are that the assessee lives with his father in the same town where the house in respect of which the relief under Section 23(3)is claimed is situated. The distance between the two houses is two miles. The assessee is a bachelor and, therefore, for his convenience resides with his father. The Tribunal clearly found that it was not shown that by living in his own house the assessee cannot look after the partnership business of manufacturing bidis. It was further found that the assessee had not left his house vacant on account of compulsi...
Tag this Judgment!Hindusthan Electrographites Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-1982
Reported in: [1984]145ITR84(MP)
Shukla, J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Petitioner is a limited company duly registered and incorported under the Companies Act. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of graphite electrodes, graphite anodes and other allied products and has its factory at Mandideep, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Petitioner is assessed to income-tax at Indore in the status of a company. 3. Petitioner-company entered into an agreement (annex. A)' with a French company, M/s. LA SOCIETE DES ELECTRODES ET REFRACTORIES SAVOIE (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. SERS'), on November 26, 1973, for availing of the improved technique and know-how of the said French company. This agreement was duly approved by the Govt. of India. Petitioner-company had been using furnaces for preparation of electrodes etc., but the foreign collaborators, M/s. SERS, had developed a new design of furnaces for baking and graphitisation. The adoption of this new design of furna...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Satyavati Sharma (Smt.).
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(MP)39
Faizan Uddin, J. - This is a reference made by the IT 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 justified in law in not invoking the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) to the facts the case ?'2. The facts briefly stated are that the assessee filed a return for the asst. yr. 1970-71 showing the total income of Rs. 16,339. The ITO made an addition of Rs. 18,000 which represented to amount deposited in the name of the assessee with M/s. Sharma Saw Mills. The assessee could give no explanation about this amount. This addition was maintained in appeal by the AAC in the assessment proceedings. There was no further appeal. In the penalty proceedings, the ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 18,000 u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The AAC, in appeal, held that the charge of concealment was not established and deleted the penalty. In further appeal before the Tribunal, it was contended on...
Tag this Judgment!Ganikhan and ors. Vs. Amanabai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1982MP190
ORDERH.G. Mishra, J. 1. This revision by the plaintiffs is against the order dated 14-7-1981, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Indore, whereby after reversing the order passed by the trial Court dated 12-2-1981, rejecting the application submitted by the defendants-non-appli-cants for issuance of a temporary injunction and allowing that submitted by the plaintiffs for issuance of a temporary injunction restraining the defendant-non-applicants from interfering with their possession over the suit land, the learned Addl. District Judge has vacated the temporary injunction issued against the defendants-non-applicants and has also ordered issuance of a warrant for deli-very of possession to the defendants-non-ap-plicants-herein and has further ordered issuance of a temporary injunction restraining the applicants-herein from disturbing possession of the defendant-non-applicants over the suit land. 2. Facts material for decision of this revision are as under: The applicants along with Chho...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Durga Prasad Magniram Vs. Dr. Ganesh Prasad
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1982MP219
Faizanuddin, J.1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 30th Aug. 1975, passed by the Additional District Judge, Sagar, in C. S. No. 2-B of 1972, whereby plaintiff's suit for arrears of rent was dismissed.2. It was not disputed between the parties that the defendant-respondent occupied a part of 'Chintamani Bhavan' at Sagar since 1954, and prior to that, the said portion was occupied by one Dr. Surajprasad. With several riders in his pleadings, the defendant admitted that he was a sub-tenant of the plaintiff-firm in respect of the portion occupied by -him. The Bhavan was owned by firm Durgaprasad Mukharya. In execution of a decree passed in Civil Suit No. 88-B of 1957, the said Bhavan was sold on 7-10-1959 in court auction which was purchased jointly by Smt. Laxmi Bai (wife of present defendant) and one Ram-charan, son of Heeralal, the Managing Pariner of the plaintiff firm. The sale was confirmed on 1-1-1962, and the sale certificate was...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.N. Oil Industries
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-1982
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(MP)169; [1983]142ITR13(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J. 1. This is a reference made to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Department referring for our answer the following question of law : ' On the facts and circumstances of the case, though the assessee had not claimed relief under Section 35B of the I.T. Act in the original assessment proceedings, if it is apparent from the record that the assessee was entitled to relief admissible under Section 35B of the I.T. Act, can the relief be granted by an order under Section 154 of the I.T. Act by rectifying the assessment?' 2. The facts briefly stated are that in the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1972-73 the assessee did not claim export markets development allowance under Section 35B of the I.T. Act, 1961. The ITO started rectification proceedings under Section 154 for correcting an error in the grant of rebate under Section 80J. In those proceedings the assessee contended that there was an apparent error in not allowing to it the r...
Tag this Judgment!Bankatlal Tody Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1982
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(MP)245; [1982]138ITR754(MP)
Sohani, J.1. By this reference under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, 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 IAC of Wealth-tax had any jurisdiction to impose penalty under, Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on March 26, 1977, after the amendment of Section 18(3) with effect from April 1, 1976, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, once the IAC had imposed composite penalty for concealment detected by the. WTO and enhanced by the AAC in value of shares and jewellery on estimate, the order was bad even relating to the part, which had been originally deleted by the WTO, and, therefore, could not be maintained qua that part '2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows : 3. For...
Tag this Judgment!Manaklal Motilal Agrawal Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1982
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(MP)191; [1982]137ITR243(MP)
Shukla, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, has made this reference under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, seeking our opinion on the following question:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the GTO should not only have been set aside but annulled altogether?'2. The facts out of which this question arose are very simple. Applicant, Manaklal Motilal Agarwal, was carrying on the business of plying passenger buses for the last many years. On August 21, 1968, he converted this proprietary business into a partnership business transferring 25% share to his son, Jawaharlal, and 12.5% each to Arvind Kumar and Subhas-chandra. Gift-tax proceedings were initiated by the GTO under Section 16 of the G.T. Act. In response to the notice the assessee filed a nil return and contended that the transaction did not amount to a gift. The GTO estimated the value of the gift at Rs. 2,26,100 and assessed it accordingly. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!Manjuladevi Tody Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1982
Reported in: [1982]138ITR760(MP)
Sohani, J.1. By this reference under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, 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 IAC had any jurisdiction to impose penalty Under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on March 24, 1977, after the amendment of Section 18(3) with effect from April 1, 1976, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,once, the IAC had imposed composite penalties for concealment detectedby the WTO and enhanced by the AAC in the value of shares and jewellery on estimate, the order was bad even relating to the part, which hadbeen originally detected by the WTO, and, therefore, could not be maintained qua that part ?' 2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows :3. For the asses...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »