Madhya Pradesh Court February 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bhilari Motors Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-1986
Reported in: [1986]62STC212(MP)
B.M. Lal, J.1. This is a reference under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), made by the Sales Tax Tribunal (Board of Revenue) at the instance of the applicant-assessee to this Court for answering the following questions of law:(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty under Section 17(3) was justified and valid in law ?(ii) Whether for non-payment of tax, penalty can be imposed in this case in view of the retrospective amendment of Section 17(3) of the Act by the amending Act No. 13 of 1971 ?2. The short facts leading to this reference are as under : The applicant-assessee, M/s. Bhilari Motors, Raipur, deal in automobiles, viz., trucks, tractors, etc. The applicant is a registered dealer under the Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act.3. For the period 1st January, 1970, to 31st December, 1970, the gross turnover was determined at Rs. 1,02,51,321 and as such the taxabl...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. B. N. Kalani and Sons.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(MP)306
ORDERSohani, J. - This is an application under 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 :For the asst. yr. 1979-80, the assessee claimed deduction on account of salary received from the employer as well as deduction on the value of perquisites received from the employer. The ITO, allowed the standard deduction of Rs. 3,500. The appeal preferred by the assessee before the AAC was dismissed. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the value of perquisites. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the department sought reference but that application was rejected. Hence, the department has filed this application.3. Having heard ld. counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that this application deserved to be rejected. Standard deduction exceedings Rs. 3,500 has not been allowed to the assessee. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›