Madhya Pradesh Court August 1989 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.
Skyline Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: [1991]187ITR130(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-'tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The material facts giving rise to this application, briefly, are as follows : The assessee carries on a business in manufacture and sale of conductors. During the assessment years in question, the assessee received a credit note from Messrs. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited towards refund of excess sales tax charged in earlier years. While framing the assessment for the assessment years in question, the assessee was asked to explain why the said amount be not taxed under Section 41(1) of the Act. The assessee contended that in pursuance of the agreement entered into with the M. P. Electricity Board, the said amount was payable by the assessee to the M. P. Electricity Board and, hence, could not be taxed under Section 41(1) of the Act. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner rejected this contention and included the said amount in the income o...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. G.B.J. Seth and C.B.J. Seth
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR377(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.J.1. This is an application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The material facts giving rise to this application, briefly, are as follows :3. Shri R.C. Jall died on December 17, 1973, and the respondents are executors of his will. While framing the assessment under the Act for the assessment year in question, the Wealth-tax Officer included the value of certain shares, gifted by the deceased, in the wealth of the assessee byinvoking the provisions of Section 34B of the Act On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the aforesaid addition holding that the Wealth-tax Officer was not justified in including the value of the gifted shares by invoking the provisions of Section 34B of the Act. The appeal preferred by the Revenue from the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought reference but as the applic...
Ajay Dhakad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ196(SC)
ORDERT.N. Singh, J.1. On the following two questions, this Bench is required to submit its opinion, but the questions are evidently framed with reference to the factual contentions raised with the object evidently, of final decision on the petition, to be rendered by this Bench:'1. Whether on the Court's satisfaction that the petitioner was already in custody on 2-9-1988, when the detention order was passed, the order of detention is rendered vitiated on that ground alone because the order of detention does not show awareness of the petitioner's custody, if established, on 2-9-1988?2. Whether the detaining authority's failure to explain or explain away the time-gap between 2-9-1988 and 14-11-1988, respectively the date of the detention order and the date of the petitioner's detention thereunder, by itself, renders the continuance of the petitioner's detention invalid?'2. Therefore, it is necessary to state first the few admitted facts appertaining the questions aforesaid albeit, with r...
Dharampal Singh Gond and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: 1990(0)MPLJ493
ORDERRampal Singh, J.1. First Bail Application filed by Shri K. N. Agrawal was dismissed by this Court on 27-6-1989 in Misc. Cr. Case No. 1280/89 on the ground that the point under section 167(2), Criminal Procedure Code, raised before this Court, was not raised before the Sessions Judge. Shri Agrawal went to the Sessions Judge, back, and brought from him another order. Now aggrieved by that order of the Sessions Judge, Shri Agrawal has again come before this Court. On perusal of the order passed by the Sessions Court, it appears that applicant No. 1 Dharampal Singh was arrested on 26-10-1988 while co-accused Raja and Samaylal were arrested on 27-10-1988. The police filed charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 7-1-1989. Thus it was within 90 days that the challan was filed. The challan lacked the, report of the Chemical Analyst and for that report, the Court awaited for about 4 months, and thus, Shri Agrawal is aggrieved that the applicants were detained unnec...
Ajay Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1738
T.N. Singh, J.1. On the following two questions, this Bench is required to submit its opinion, but the questions are evidently framed with reference to the factual contentions raised with the object evidently, of final decision on the petition, to be rendered by this Bench:'1. Whether on the Court's satisfaction that the petitioner was already in custody on 2-9-1988, when the detention order was passed, the order of detention is rendered vitiated on that ground alone because the order of detention does not show awareness of the petitioner's custody, if established, on 2-9-88 ?2. Whether the detaining authority's failure to explain or explain away the time-gap between 2-9-88 and 14-11-88, respectively the date of the detention order and the date of petitioner's detention thereunder, by itself, renders the continuance of the petitioner's detention invalid? '2. Therefore, it is necessary to state first the few admitted facts appertaining the questions aforesaid albeit, with reference to p...
Ratiram Singh Yadav Vs. Principal, Government Polytechnic, Harda and a ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-1989
Reported in: AIR1990MP129; 1989MPLJ712
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The order passed in this petition shall also govern the disposal of M. P. No. 411 / 88 (Omshankar Chanderi and Ors. v. Madhya Pradesh Technical Education Board, through its Secretary and another).2. The petitioners who are students of Govt. Polytechnic, Harda, being an institution under the Madhya Pradesh Board of Technical Education, Bhopal, have all been rusticated and debarred from appearing in the examinations conducted by the Board, by way of disciplinary action against them for their disorderly behaviour in the examination hall. All the petitioners have a common grievance that disciplinary action of debarring them from the examination, by way of punishment, has been taken against them by the Principal of the Institution and by the Board of Technical Education, without affording them any opportunity to show cause against the penal action.3. The petitioner Ratiram Singh Yadav in M.P. No. 271/88 has come forward with a specific grievance that he never appear...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madhubala Shrenik Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-1989
Reported in: (1989)79CTR(MP)136; [1990]181ITR180(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.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 law in holding that the remuneration paid to Shri Shrenik Kumar, the husband of the assessee, was not assessable in the hands of the assessee under the provisions of Section 64(1)(ii) of the Act ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows :The assessee is a partner of a firm, Tanted Brothers. The assessee has one-third share in the profit and loss of the said firm. For the assessment years in question, the husband of the assessee was employed by the firm as a salesman. While framing the assessment of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the amount of salary paid by the firm to the husband of the assesse...
Hope Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR247(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The material facts giving rise to this application, briefly are as follows :3. For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee was assessed by the order of assessment passed on March 17, 1976. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It was contended on behalf of the assessee that as the Income-tax Officer had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 144B of the Act, the order of assessment deserved to be quashed. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal and directed the Income-tax Officer to pass an order of assessment afresh, after following the procedure prescribed by Section 144B of the Act. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and contended that the appellate aut...
Jagdish Prasad and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-1989
Reported in: 1990MPLJ323
ORDERB.C. Varma, J.1. From the averments made in the petition, it appears that one Lachhoo Prasad and Chainlal held about 3 acres of land, comprised in Plot No. 94, Gora Bazar, Cantonment, Jabalpur, They continued in its occupation till their death. Lachhoo Prasad and Chainlal are both dead. Lachhoo Prasad died on 6-11-1979, while Chainlal died in 1969. On their death, their heirs, including Gulab Chand and Shivnath came in occupation. Gulab Chand is also dead and his sons are said to be in occupation. The petitioners, who are the heirs of the original holders, Lachhoo Prasad and Chainlal, allege that their ancestors were in occuption as owners of this land much before the British rule in India. However, on a misapprehension, lease deeds were executed by the Cantonment Board in respect of this land, the last being the lease deed dated 7-6-1969, executed in favour of Lachhoo Ram alias Lachhoo Prasad, Gulabchand and Shivnath. This lease expired in 1975, whereafter it was never renewed al...
Manorama Vs. Chittar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1989
Reported in: AIR1990MP112; 1990MPLJ300
ORDERK.L. Shrivastava, J. 1. This is an application under Order 22, Rule 9 of the Civil P.C., 1908 (for short 'the Code') for setting aside abatement of appeal. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside abatement of appeal has also been filed.2. Circumstances giving rise to the applications are these. Second Appeal No. 389 of 1974 preferred by Chandrashekhar the father of the petitioner Smt. Manorama wife of Jagdish Chandera was dismissed on 17-7-1985 as having abated, the said Chandrashekar having died on 15-1-1985.3. The application for setting aside the abatement was filed on 29-8-1986 and therein it has been stated that Chandrashekar was resident of a village in district Dhar and the applicant resides in Indore and had no earlier knowledge of any case by her father.4. In the application under Section 5 of the Act it has been stated that the petitioner came to know about the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »