Madhya Pradesh Court May 1983 Judgments
Tax Recovery Officer (income-tax) and Ramakrishna Shenoy Vs. Dilip Con ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-1983
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(MP)104; [1984]148ITR599(MP)
B.C. Varma, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Civil Revision No. 40 of 1983 (Ramkrishna Shenoy v. Dilip Construction Company and Anr.).2. One Dilip Construction Company, Baroda (non-applicant No. 1), had to recover certain dues from Bhilai Steel Plant (non-applicant No. 2). It ultimately secured two awards in its favour and against the Bhilai Steel Plant for Rs. 7,71,512 and Rs. 5,15,722 for two different claims. The awards were put into execution by Dilip Construction Company in the Court of District Judge, Durg. Dilip Construction Company which was a partnership firm was, however, dissolved on September 28, 1980. The firm and its partners individually were in all to pay a huge amount of Rs. 12,00,000 odd as income-tax. On September 28, 1980, the Tax Recovery Officer, Baroda, issued a prohibitory order to the Bhilai Steel Plant as also to the District Judge, Durg, in exercise of its powers under Rule 31 of the Second Schedule to the I.T. Act, 1961. The amount sought to...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agarwal Timber and Bans Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-1983
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(MP)97; [1983]144ITR46(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, on a direction by this court, under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question of law is as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the amount of Rs. 18,379 considered for assessment as profit under Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1968-69 for which the account yearended on 31st July, 1967. The assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee-firm originally consisted of four partners, viz., Maya Prakash Balkishandas, Shantiswaroop and Kanchimal. Some time in 1966, the account year,two of the partners of the firm, viz., Maya Prakash and Kanchimal, retiredand formed a separate firm. The assessee-firm inducted two other personsas partners. On the retirement of Maya Prakash and Kanchimal, theassessee-firm gave them two trucks and a jeep in liquidation of Rs. 48,000,which was the amount which...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanaprasad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ556
ORDERM.D. Bhatt, J.1. This is the revision of the accused Narayana Prasad, who has been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay the fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of fine, to two months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. Both the Courts below, relying on the oral testimonies of the Food Inspector, P. W. 1 R. D. Dohre and P. W. 3 R. C Jain, who had accompanied the said Food Inspector to the Kirana Shop of the applicant-accused on 26-9-1977, have held that the applicant-accused, on the demand of the Food Inspector to sell him the sample of groundnut oil, whose tins were found kept in the shop, had refused to sell him the sample and had refused to sign the notice, which was intended to be given to the applicant-accused in this regard. It was equally held by both these Courts that the applicant-accused had told the Food Inspector at the relevant time that the oil was not an item, which was manufactured at h...
Tag this Judgment!Mariam Bee Vs. Town and Country Development Authority
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-1983
Reported in: 1(1984)ACC227
G.L. Oza, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act filed by the appellant, the widow of the deceased workmen, against an order dated 23-2-1982, passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in case No. 70/80.2. The deceased Gulam Ali was serving with the respondent as a Chowkidar and was posted under Shri Dixit, Assistant Engineer. On 22-3-80, he was directed to remove encroachments and it was alleged by the appellant in the Court below that for that purpose, he had gone with a spade and a pick-axe and on return, as it caused him sufficient strain, he developed pain in his chest and at 9.30 a.m., he died as a result of cardiac failure. It was alleged by the appellant that his wages were Rs. 190.70 p.m. and as he died during the course of his employment, compensation was claimed by the appellant.3. The claim was contested by the respondent and the learned Commissioner dismissed the claim petition holding that the deceased was not a workman within the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›