Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Ku. Sadhana Vs. Vikram University, UjjaIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1986MP181
Sohani, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows :-- The petitioner, who was a student of the Government Arts & Science College, Rattam, appeared for the M.Sc. (Previous) Examination in Chemistry held in March, April 1985 by respondent 1, Vikram University. The result of the examination was declared on 8-7-1985 and the petitioner was declared to have failed in that examination. She received the mark-sheet on 26-7-1985. On 2-8-1985, the petitioner submitted an application for revaluation. The result of revaluation was declared on 15-1 i-85 and the petitioner was declared to have passed in M-Sc. (Previous) Examination. The petitioner then approached respondent 3, the Principal, Government Arts and Science College, Ratlam, for admission to the M.Sc. (Final) class but respondent 3 refused admission to the petitioner on the ground that the last date fixed for admission to the College was 31st ...
Girdharilal Bagadia Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-1986
Reported in: [1986]161ITR89(MP)
Sohani, J.1. The order in this case will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 245 of 1976.2. The following two questions of law have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench. Initially, the Tribunal had referred the following question to the court for its opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 57,200, which was allowed as loss on shares in the assessment year 1951-52, is profit assessable to tax under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the assessment year 1965-66 ?'3. Subsequently, as directed by this court on an application under Section 256(2) of the Act made by the assessee, the following question was also referred to this court, for its opinion by the Tribunal:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 57,200, which is allowed as loss...
Permali Wallace Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-1986
Reported in: 1987(14)ECC64
ORDER1. Petitioners by Shri Y.S. Dharmadhikaii and Shri JJ Bhatt, They are heard on the question of admission.Shri A.P. Tare for respondents.2. This petition is directed against a show cause notice dated 19-8-1973 and thereafter another show cause notice dated 2-4-1985 issued to the petitioners to show cause as to why the goods manufactured by the petitioners be not classified under the tariff item indicated in the notices. After this petition was filed, another show cause notice dated 27-2-1986 is also stated to have been served on the petitioners to the same effect.3. Admittedly there is adequate efficacious remedy available to the petitioners under the Act to assail the department's contention mentioned in the show cause notices. In this connection, reference to the several amendments made in the Act in 1982 are also material inasmuch as they provide the remedy of approaching the High Court and thereafter even the Supreme Court by way of an appeal by resorting to the procedure presc...
Kanhaiyalal Lunaji Padiyar Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Indore
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1986
Reported in: II(1986)ACC314; AIR1986MP251; 1986MPLJ689
B.M. Lal, J. 1. The order passed in this petition shall also govern the disposal of the connected Miscellaneous Petition No. 252 of 1984 (Bapulal Kesharimal & Company v. Regional Transport Authority, Ujjan and Anr.), No. 878 of 84 (Akhtari Begum & Sons and Anr. v. Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain and Anr.). No. 3469 of 1984 (Vijay Motor Transport Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.), No. 725 of 1983 (Ramesh Chand v. Regional Transport Authority, Indore and Anr.), No. 1599 of 1985 (Ramprasad Purohit and Anr. v. State of M. P. and Anr.), and No. 3195 of 85 (M. P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.). 2. These petitions are under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioners who are bus operators, are seeking to quash the notifications issued by the various Regional Transport Authorities, wherein reservation of bus routes for Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes has been notified, on the ground...
Thakur Veerpal Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-11-1986
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(MP)22
ORDERB. C. Varma, J. - The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for decision of this Court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order of the AAC on the question of penalty ?'The reference has been made under these circumstances :2. The applicant/assessee Thakur Veerpal Singh filed return of his income for the asst. yr. 1970-71. Income was shown as Rs. 5,420. The assessee did not appear before the ITO and, therefore, he was assessed ex parte. The income assessed was Rs. 10,452. Thus, a sum of Rs. 5,000 was added as income from undisclosed sources. The assessee appealed. The AAC held that this addition could not be made and thus allowed, the appeal. On further appeal by the Department before the Tribunal, the ITOs order was restored. This assessment order has now become final. Thereafter, proceedings for imposition of penalty were commenced under s. 271 of the IT Act by the ITO....
Dewas Textiles Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1986
Reported in: [1986]161ITR72(MP)
Sohani, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 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 right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation on the plant and machineries at 15% as per entry III-B(3) of Appendix I, Part I, of the Income-tax Rules ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows :While framing assessment for the assessment year 1976-77, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation no plant and machinery used for manufacturing artificial silk at the rate of 15%, as provided by entry III-B(3) in Appendix I, Part I of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the order passed by the Inc...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kamal Kumar.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-1986
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(MP)143
ORDERSohani, J. - The order in this case will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 217 and 218 both of 1984.2. These are application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. The material facts giving rise to these applications, briefly, are as follows :The assessee, in all these cases, is assessed in the status of HUF. While framing assessment for the relevant assessment years, the ITO included in the income of the assessee the amount of interest on the amounts alleged to have been deposited by the assessees with the firm M/s. Jeetmal Manilal & Sons. On appeal, the AAC held that the amount deposited with the firm belonged to individuals and not to the assessee HUF and hence, there was no justification for inclusion of interest in the hands of the assessee HUF. In this view of the matter, the appeal was allowed by the AAC. On further appeal, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the AAC and dismissed the appeals. An application fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›