Madhya Pradesh Court August 1983 Judgments
Moolchand and ors. Vs. Mst. Khushed Bi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-1983
Reported in: AIR1984MP32
Oza, J.1. This revision petition was heard by Hon'ble single Judge who by his order dated 23-12-82 felt that there is a conflict of views in two single Bench judgments of this Court with regard to valuation of claim in a suit for declaration for purposes of jurisdiction where the declaration is sought in respect of title of the land which is agricultural land separately assessed to land revenue and the learned Judge, therefore, framed two questions for answer ,and Hon'ble the Chief Justice has constituted this Bench for answering the two questions. The questions are :--'1. What shall be the proper valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction in a suit for a declaration of title to the , land separately assessed to land revenue? 2. What shall be the amount of court-fee payable on such a relief?' 2. The non-applicants plaintiffs claim-ed a declaration of title to the suit lands and also sought a relief of perpetual injunction. The suit lands are agricultural holdings assessed to land reven...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal Ashok Kumar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(MP)268
ORDERSohani, J. - This is an application u/s 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The material facts giving rise to this application, briefly, are as follows :The assessee is assesses in the status of an association of person and the assessment year in question is 1974-75. In the asst. yr. 1973-74, the assessee had purchased a plot of land for Rs. 10,523 and constructed a house thereon. According to the assessee, the cost of construction was Rs. 1,09,700. The ITO got the house valued by the Departmental Valuer, who estimated its value at Rs. 1,71,310. The ITO accepted the cost of the house estimated by the Departmental Valuer and he accordingly made an addition of Rs. 61,610 on account of income from undisclosed sources. On appeal, the AAC held that the assessee had maintained accounts and the ITO had not brought any material on record to show way why these accounts were nit acceptable. The AAC therefore, deleted the entire addition made by the ITO. Aggrie...
Tag this Judgment!H.H. Maharaja Lokendra Singhji Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-1983
Reported in: [1984]150ITR68(MP)
Sohani, J.1. By this reference under Section 27(1) of W.T. Act, 1957 (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 Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the contingent right to claim enhanced compensation is a valuable right and, therefore, an asset and consequently ' property ' under Section 2(e) and 2(m) ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the contingent right to enhanced compensation accrued to the petitioner from the very date oftaking possession of the land by the Government on February 26, 1965, and, therefore, an asset on the relevant valuation date, viz., March 31, 1974, contrary to the fact that the High Court awarded a decree on April 26, 1977, against which the State Government filed an application for...
Tag this Judgment!Gambhir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ445
J.S. Verma, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302. I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Jhanka. and also under Section 307 I.P.C. for which offence he has been sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. for attempting to murder Narbadiya Bai (P.W. 1) wife of the deceased Jhanka. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.2. Jhanka and his wife Narbadiya Bai were living in village Mohantola. Police Station. Mandla. district Mandla. at the time of the incident. Very early in the morning on 27-2-1980. Narbadiya Bai (P.W. 1) in an injured state. raised an alarm from her house, which brought to the scene Dhallu fP.W. 2) and Mal-thuram (P.W. 31 and to them she gave out that a person residing in village Tindua Bamhani had come and stayed at their house the previous night and he had killed her husband Jhanka and also inflicted injuries to her with a pharsa and then fled from the scene. A report (Ex. P-1)V mentioning these facts. was lodged by Dhall...
Tag this Judgment!Electrofab Industries Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-1983
Reported in: [1984]56STC101(MP)
G.G. Sohani, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 29th November, 1981, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore, in Revision No. DCR/313/81-82.2. The material facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows :The petitioner, a firm consisting of partners Sunil, S/o Kalyanmal Vyas andPrabodh, S/o Vinayak Bhise, submitted an application dated 21st May, 1981, before respondent No. 1 for registration under the provisions of Section 15/16 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In that application, it was not disclosed that the partners of the petitioner-firm had interest in any other business even though in the prescribed application form, such information was required to be given. In the course of enquiry made by the Sales Tax Officer, it came to light that the partners of the petitioner-firm were carrying on business as partners of another firm 'Tekno...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bahadursingh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1065
ORDERM.D. Bhatt, J.1. The State Government of Madhya Pradesh has filed the present Misc. Petition under Section 186(b) Cr.P.C. 73 for transfer of the particular pending proceedings from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Bassi Pathanan Distt, Patiala (Punjab State) to the Court of competent Magistrate Bhopal (State of M.P.).2. It is with regard to the particular Truck No. MHV 6088 seized from one Lakhvindar Singh by P.S. Sirhind District Patiala that certain offences were investigated both by P.S. Shajehanabad, Bhopal (M.P.) and by P.S. Sirhind, District Patiala (State of Punjab). One Bahadursingh, claiming himself to be owner of the truck in question, had lodged the report with the police regarding the theft of the vehicle committed during the intervening night of 11th and 12th January. 1983. The offence was registered by P.S. Shahjehanabad as Crime No. 35 of 83. Later, when the said truck was seized by P.S. Sirhind from one Lakhvinder Singh driving the same in suspicious ci...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Central India Machinery Manufacturing C ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1983
Reported in: (1985)45CTR(MP)126
ORDERU. N. Bhachawat, J. - This order shall dispose of Miscellaneous Civil Cases No. 108 of 1977 and 109 of 1977 also, an in all these cases a common question is involved and the parties are the same.2. These are the applications made by the department u/s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act), praying that this court should require the ITAT to state the case and to refer the following question in the above respective cases for our answer :(i) M.C.C. No. 107/1977'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order the order of the AAC whereby he held the expenditure in respect of lease rent amount to Rs. 18,95,832 as wholly and exclusively, for the purpose of business and, accordingly, allowing the assessees claim ?'(ii) M.C.C. No. 108/1977'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the AAC whereby he held ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›