Madhya Pradesh Court January 1984 Judgments
Vitthalrao Mahale Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1984
Reported in: AIR1984MP70
C.P. Sen, J.1. This is petition under Article 226 of 'the Constitution by petitioner Vitthal Rao Mahale claiming himself to he the Secretary of the Laghu Swasthya Kendra Samiti (Mini Primary Health Centre), Rangarithoka, Tahsil, Sausar, for a writ of mandamus directing the State of M. P. not to shift the mini primary health centre from that place and also to make it a permanent centre.2. The petition has been filed in a representative capacity on behalf of the residents of Rangarithoka saying that it is a village having population of 2100 with scanty medical facilities although there is a Janpad Ayurvedic Dispensary in the village but the nearest Civil Dispensary is at Lodhikeda, 5 Kms. away, separated by two rivers. Rangarisafar is the adjacent village about 1 Km. away. Due to constant efforts of the villagers, mini primary health centre was established in 1979 by the State which is being run in the said Ayurvedic Dispensary in a skeleton form catering the need of Rangarithoka and the...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel and Smt. Jyotsna Devi Patel Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(MP)323; [1984]149ITR80(MP)
C.P. Sen, J.1. At the instance of the assessee the following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for opinion of this court:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the cost of improvement to the property incurred by M/s Mohanlal Har-govinddas should be allowed as deduction under Section 49 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while computing the capital gain in the hands of the asses-see ?2. The assessee, Smt. Ujjambai, was the owner of an immovable property at Jabalpur which was self-occupied. One-third of this property was sold for a sum of rupees three lakhs during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1973-74. After making various deductions including the selling expenses and the cost of the property, the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 44,620 as capital gain from this property. On the other hand, the ITO worked out the amount of capital gain at a sum of Rs. 1,21,220. The difference arose on account of the fact that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vineet Talkies Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1984
Reported in: [1984]148ITR66(MP)
C.P. Sen, J.1. In compliance with the direction of this court under Section 256(2) of the J.T. Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has drawn up a statement of the case and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was open to the assessee to challenge before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal the charging of interest amounting to Rs. 6,331 under Section 217(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. In respect of the assessment year 1970-71 for the year ending March 31, 1970, the ITO charged interest amounting to Rs. 6,331 under Section 217(1A) of the I.T. Act for failure on the part of the assessee to make an upward revision of advance tax estimate, as per provisions of Section 212(3A) of the Act. The assessee challenged the order of assessment and also charging of interest under Section 217(1A) of the Act before the AAC. The AAC reduced the total income by Rs. 2,900 but di...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Shabbir Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1984
Reported in: [1984]148ITR111(MP)
C.P. sen, J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the assessee for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions of law: '(1) Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, there is justification in law to hold that the applicant had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income for the purpose of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ? (2) Whether there is material on record to hold that there was fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the applicant so as to bring him within the purview of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) ? (3) Whether by the mere non-acceptance of the explanation given by the applicant, it could be held that there was wilful neglect or fraud on the part of the applicant ? (4) Whether on the material on record, it could be held that the penal provisions were attracted ? (5) Whether the imposition of penalt...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-25-1984
Reported in: AIR1985MP205
ORDER1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to quash the order dt. 24th Sept. 1983 passed by the respondent 2 directing the detention of the petitioner in civil prison for thirty days and also an order declaring him disqualified under the M. P. Panchayat Adhimyam, 1981 for holding the post of a Ranch for five years.2. This petition was filed by the petitioner as a petition for habeas corpus as he was in detention under the orders passed by respondent 2.3. According to the petitioner, he is a permanent resident of village Chandrokhar, tahsil Gohad, district Bhind and he was a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Chandrokhar, before the recent elections. It is also alleged that the petitioner is a political worker and he claims to be an active member of Lok Dal, one of the political parties in India. It is also alleged by the petitioner that as a political worker he has criticised the work and conduct of respondent 2 and has also made complaints against him and it i...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shantibai (Legal Heir of Late Badri Prasad Gour) Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(MP)133; [1984]148ITR49(MP)
J.S. Verma, J.1. This judgment shall also dispose of Misc. Civil Case No. 2 of 1981 (Smt. Mainabai v. Commissioner of Income-tax).2. In both these references made to this court as a consequence of the direction given under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the question of law referred for decision of this court is the same, which is as under I ' Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the applicant before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax was maintainable under Section 246 '3. Material facts are these. The assessee in both these cases was Badri Prasad Gour. For the assessment year 1962-63, for which the previous year ended on Diwali 1961, the assessee, Badri Prasad Gour, filed a return on March 4, 1964, showing Rs. 68,272 as the taxable income. Provisional assessment under Section 141 was made on that basis the same day and the tax payable thereon was determined at Rs. 28,247, which was deposited by the assessee. Similarly, for the ...
Tag this Judgment!ismail Khan Vs. Shankarlal Chourasia
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1984MP139
C.P. Sen, J.1. This is a reference by the Taxing Officer for opinion of this Court as to what court-fee is required to be paid on the cross-objection preferred by the respondent plaintiff arising out of second appeal filed by the defendant-tenant against the decree for eviction passed against him under Section 12 (1) (c) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for subletting. The plaintiff had also sought eviction under 12 (1) (a) and (f) on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need for business purposes which has been disallowed by the Courts below.2, The respondent has filed cross-objection under Order 41, Rule 22, C. P. C. and is praying for a decree on these two additional grounds also and has affixed a court-fee stamp of Rs. 7.50 which is payable on a miscellaneous appeal. According to the Taxing Officer, since the plaintiff is seeking eviction on two additional grounds also, he must pay ad valorem court-fee under Article 1 of Schedule 1 of the Court-fees Act as it ca...
Tag this Judgment!Jiwajirao Sugar Company Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1984
Reported in: [1985]59STC273(MP)
ORDERG.G. Sohani, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The material facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows : The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and carries on the business of manufacturing sugar at Dalauda. The petitioner is required to pay purchase tax on the purchase price of sugarcane, in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner is further required to file returns as provided by Section 17 of the Act. Section 22(2) of the Act lays down that before furnishing the return, a dealer has to pay the full amount of tax due from him according to such return. For the period 1st October, 1982 to 31st December, 1982 and 1st January, 1983 to 31st March, 1983 the petitioner filed returns but did not pay any tax. It made a representation to the State Government under Section 12 of the Act for granting exemptio...
Tag this Judgment!Maheshwari Lime Works and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(MP)307; [1984]147ITR804(MP)
1. Shri B. L. Nema for the petitioners and Shri J. P. Sanghi for the Commissioner of income-tax heard on admission.2. In these two petitions, the petitioners, M/s. Maheshwari Lime works, Katni, and M/s. Shri Venkatesh Trading Co., Katni, have challenged the transfer of their assessment cases from the file of ITO, 'A' Ward, Katni, to the file of ITO, Special Investigation Circle-II, Jabalpur, by the impugned order dated July 25, 1983, by the Commissioner under Section 127 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Notices were issued to the petitioners by the Commissioner for transfer of their cases on June 25, 1983, for the purpose of detailed and co-ordinated assessment. They were directed to submit their written objection on or before July 14, 1983, and also to appear before him in person or through a representative duly authorised in this behalf for a personal hearing. The petitioners submitted their written objections on July 13, 1983, contending : (1) this will entail lot of expenditure to the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. Banno E. Cowasji
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-13-1984
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(MP)362; [1984]147ITR744(MP)
Sohani, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' file 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 Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the income accruing to the assesseefrom her share of the estate of her late husband '2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows :The assessee is an individual and one of the heirs of one Shri E.C. Co-wasji who died intestate on December 23, 1967. The assessment years in question are 1968-69 and 1972-73. In respect of these assessment years, the ITO issued notices under Section 148 of the Act to the assessee on the ground that the income from the assessee's share in the property left by the deceased, E. C. Cowasji, was not returned by the assessee. The ITO, after hearing the assessee, included that income in the tota...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »