Madhya Pradesh Court February 1996 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohd. Iqbal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR481(MP)
1. This is an income-tax reference at the instance of the Revenue and the following two questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal before this court for answer, which read as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in admitting the additional grounds of appeal ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessments were barred by limitation ?' 2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are thus : The assessment year involved is 1978-79 in the cases of all the three assessees, viz., Kalekhan, Mohd. Hanif, Mohd: Idris and Mohd. Iqbal. The appeals of the assessees regarding their objections to the amount of income assessed and interest levied by the Income-tax Officer were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and second appeals were filed before the Tribunal on -the same objections. During the course of hearing of these appeals, t...
Grover Soap Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR299(MP)
1. This is an income-tax reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee and the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for answer of this court, which reads as under :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of royalty to Jaikishan and Jagdishchander was not allowable in computing the total income of the assessee ?'2. The assessee, being a limited company, was incorporated on July 7, 1976, and the company became one of the partners of the firm styled as National Soap Industries with effect from August 1, 1976. The said firm originally had two partners, viz., Jaikishan and Jagdishchander. The company, by virtue of it becoming a partner in the said firm, became entitled to one-third share of the firm. Before the assessee joined the partnership, the partners on July 31, 1...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Vittaldas M. Modi (Late)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR552(MP)
A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. The applicant has filed this application under Section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, as a result of the order dated March 28, 1988, passed by the Tribunal on Application No. 54/(Ind) of 1987 which was preferred in connection with the order dated July 3, 1987, by the Tribunal in E. D. A. No. 6/(Ind) of 1986.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the original assessee who owned the house situated in Sanghi Street, Mhow, is now represented by the accountable person. This accountable person declared the value of the house. The learned Controller of Estate Duty, however, directed the Assistant Controller to value this residential house for the purpose of the estate duty as per Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The accountable person had declared the value of the house at Rs. 1,50,000 for the purpose of estate duty. On valuation, the value was estimated lower than the value declared. The authorities accepted the lower-value as against the higher valu...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balmat Singh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: I(1997)ACC553; 1997ACJ368; [1996(73)FLR1695]; (1996)IILLJ525MP; 1996(0)MPLJ737
ORDERS.K.Dubey, J:1. The appellant Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated February 22, 1993 in W.C.Case No. 78/92 passed by the Commissioner for Workman's Compensation cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (for short 'the Commissioner')2. The facts are not in dispute. Respondent No. 1, the claimant was employed as a Cleaner/Conductor in Truck No. MPQ - 3495 owned by respondent No. 2 and insured by the appellant. The said truck met with an accident on June 22, 1992 wherein respondent No. 1 received multiple injuries as a result of which leg of the claimant was amputated 4' below the knee. The Commissioner after recording evidence determined the loss of earning capacity at 100 percent as respondent was not able to perform his duties which he was discharging, hence awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,05, 895/-with interest at the rate of 12 percent from the date of accident till the date of deposit....
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Vs. State Industrial Court and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ1181MP; 1996(0)MPLJ835
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.. Letters Patent Appeal No. 25 of 1995 arises out of the Order dated January 5, 1995, passed in Writ Petition No. 4077 of 1994, by Shri A.K. Mathur, J. (as he then was) and the rest of the appeals arise out of the common Order passed on Febuary 20, 1995, by Shri M.V. Tamaskar, J. In all the aforesaid appeals, the common question involved is in relation to the interpretation of Section 65(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short the Act). In all the cases, the order terminating the services of the respective employees were set aside by the Labour Court. The employer aggrieved by the Order passed by the Labour Court of reinstatement with backwages, preferred separate appeals under Section 65 of the Act before the State Industrial Court. The Industrial Court stayed the operation of the order of reinstatement and payment of back wages directing the employer to make payment of full wages last drawn, under Section 65(3) of the Act. According to th...
Attar Singh Narayan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)MPLJ298
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. The trial magistrate formed an opinion that he can decide the case only when evidence is recorded by him. He accordingly passed an order for de novo trial. It is this order which is being impugned in the present petition. The petitioner submits that he is facing a protracted trial. A case under, sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was registered against him. This happened on 10th of December, 1987. The evidence in this case was recorded by the Special Judge. Upto 15th of March, 1990 about 19 witnesses were examined. It is stated that the last witness was examined on 23rd of February, 1991. Later on, the matter came to be transferred to the Court which passed the order on 12th of February, 1992. It has come to the conclusion that the entire evidence shall have to be recorded de novo. For this, reliance has been placed on a decision given by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported as Pyare Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 690. The ab...
imratlal Vishwakarma and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ662
ORDERR.P. Awasthy, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 5563/95 and 5772/95.2. Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 648/95, 5563/95 and 5772/95 have been referred to a Larger Bench by an Hon'ble Single Judge for resolving the controversy as to whether second application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after rejection of the first application would or would not be tenable. The controversy has arisen on account of the fact that Hon'ble Single Judge of this High Court (Hon'ble P. N. S. Chouhan, J.), placing his reliance on 1992 Cri. LJ. 2208, Malla Ramarao v. State, has held that second bail petition under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code is not tenable. However, in 1993 Cr.L.J. at page 476, Dharmendra v. State of M. P., it has been held by Hon'ble Shacheendra Dwivedi, J. that second petition under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code would be tenable if the earlier petition has been withdrawn and consequently dismissed. In this auth...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ganesh Soap Works
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(MP)31
ORDERBY THE COURT:This is a income-tax reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, at the instance of the Revenue and the following question has been referred for answer by this Court, which reads as under:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred by Ganesh Sales Agency, was allowable as a business expenditure incurred by the assessee?'2. The matter relates to the asst. yr. 1977-78 for which the previous year was Diwali year 1976. The assessee paid Rs. 54,861 as commission to Ganesh Sales Agency whose proprietor was Snit. Pushpa wife of the main partner Shri Jakhu Bhai of the assessee-firm. The ITO called upon the assessee to justify the payment of commission to Ganesh Sales Agency. In the earlier year, the ITO had disallowed part of the commission paid to the said concern under s. 40A(2)(a) and the Tribunal had upheld the finding. The assessee claimed that Snit. Pushpa was actually rendering service to...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mohd. Iqbal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(MP)398
BY THE COURT :This is an IT reference at the instance of the Revenue and the following two questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal before this Court for answer, which read as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in admitting the additional grounds of appeal ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessments were barred by limitation ?'2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are thus : The assessment year involved is 1978-79 in the cases of all the three assessees, viz., Kalekhan, Mohd. Hanif, Mohd. Idris and Mohd. Iqbal. The appeals of the assessees regarding their objections to the amount of income assessed and interest levied by the ITO were dismissed by the CIT(A), and second appeals were filed before the Tribunal on the same objections. During the course of hearing of these appeals, the assessees sought permission of the Tribuna...
Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR210(MP)
A.K. Mathur, C.J.1. This is an income-tax reference under Section256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee and thefollowing questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal for answerby this court :' 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was mistake apparent from the record rectifiable under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to investment under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessment year involved in the present case is 1978-79. The assessee is a public company. The assessee claimed investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), of Rs. 1,17,003 attributable to the Perfect Sanitary Pipes, Bharatpur unit. In the original assessment completed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »