Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1997]226ITR88(MP)
1. The petitioner by this petition has prayed that the notice dated September 10, 1993 (annexure 'P-4'), issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, may be quashed.2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is a registered firm and followed the financial year as the accounting year. The petitioner-firm took certain excise contracts in the auction held in February, 1984, and working of such contracts started from April 1, 1984. The petitioner filed the return of income for the financial year 1984-85 relevant to the assessment year 1985-86. During the course of the assessment proceedings for that year, it was required to produce confirmation letters from the creditors giving their complete and detailed addresses, G. I. R. No. and the Income-tax Ward/Circle and mode of payment of the amounts. The petitioner submitted written explanations on September 26, 1988, and September 27, 1988, with confirmation letters of loan creditors. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1997]226ITR152(MP)
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. The applicant (Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal) has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), seeking a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the proposed question, as extracted below, after rejection of the application on December 30, 1991, registered as R. A. No. 388/Ind. of 1991 for the assessment year 1987-88 arising out of the order dated July 22, 1991, passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 1128/Ind. of 1990, for our consideration and opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled for investment allowance under Section 32A when its activity is construction of roads ?'2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. The assessee-firm is a civil contractor. For the assessment year 1987-88, it claimed investment allowance of Rs. 1,62,163 under Section 32A of the Act on the machinery costing Rs. 6,48,651. This claim of allowance was rejected by the Assessing Office...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1996)135CTR(MP)483
ORDERA. R. TIWARI, J. :At the instance of the applicant (CIT, Bhopal), the Tribunal has stated the cases and referred the undernoted common question of law, as extracted below, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), on particulars as documented for our consideration and opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Mandi fee was not a tax nor a duty within the meaning of cl. (a) of s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts of each case are as under :(A) Misc. Civil Case No. 380 of 1992 :The Department filed applications under s. 256(1) of the Act which were registered as RA No. 253 and 259/Ind/91 arising out of the orders passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 111 and 414/Ind/1988 for asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86. The assessee is a registered firm. The ITO found that there was outstanding balance of Rs. 24,256 in the asst. yr. 1984-85 and of Rs. 26,800 in the asst. yr. 1985-86, in Krishi Upaj ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1997)137CTR(MP)207
ORDERBY THE COURT :The petitioner has by this petition prayed that the provisions of s. 143(1A)(a)(B) of the IT Act, 1961 be declared as ultra vires the Constitution of India. It is also prayed that the demand raised under s. 143(1A) of the Act for a sum of Rs. 1,44,383 (Annex-P2 and P3) be quashed and the notice issued on 16th/23rd Nov., 1994 (Annex-10) under s. 226(3) of the IT Act attaching the bank account of the petitioner No. 1 in the State Bank of Indore be also quashed. Likewise, it is prayed that the notice dt. 1st Sept., 1994 Annex-P11 issued by the respondent No. 3 be quashed.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing of drugs. Petitioner No. 2 is the managing director and the shareholder in the petitioner No. 1 company and is interested in the various affairs of the company. The petitioner No. 1 filed a return showing a business loss of Rs. 14,09,666 and a carry forward of loss of the preceding two years i.e., asst. yrs. 1989-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1998)144CTR(MP)381
BY THE COURT :The petitioner by this petition has prayed that the notice dt. 10th September, 1993 (annexure 'P-4'), issued under s. 148 r/w s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961, may be quashed.2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is a registered firm and followed the financial year as the accounting year. The petitioner-firm took certain excise contracts in the auction held in February, 1984, and working of such contracts started from 1st April, 1984. The petitioner filed the return of income for the financial year 1984-85 relevant to the asst. yr. 1985-86. During the course of the assessment proceedings for that year, it was required to produce confirmation letters from the creditors giving their complete and detailed addresses, GIR No. and the IT Ward/Circle and mode of payment of the amounts. The petitioner submitted written explanations on 26th Sept., 1988, and 27th September, 1988, with confirmation letters of loan creditors. In the written explanations, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1997)137CTR(MP)148
INDORE BENCHA. R. TIWARI, J. :These Misc. Civil Cases are heard as connected matters and are being disposed of by this common order.Misc. Civil Case No. 60 of 19892. On application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), filed by the assessee (Kamal Kishore & Co., Khachrod), this Court directed the Tribunal to state the case and refer the undernoted question of law for our opinion arising out of the common order dt. 8th May, 1986 passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 559 to 561/Ind/85 for asst. yrs. 1977-78 to 1979-80 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in view of the ground of appeal taken before it, erred in law in setting aside the order passed by the AAC whereby the order of the ITO cancelling registration/continuation of registration of the assessee firm was set aside ?'3. Facts in brief are that the assessee observed financial year as its accounting period. It came into existence by a partnership dt. 23rd March, 1976 with thre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1996)135CTR(MP)481; [1997]226ITR826(MP)
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has stated the case on application registered as R. A. No. 385/Ind. of 1991 arising out of I.T.A. No. 412/Ind. of 1989 and C. O. No. 70/Ind. of 1989 and referred the undernoted question of law for our consideration and opinion :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that mandi fee was not a tax nor a duty within the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961?'2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the year of assessmentis 1984-85. The accounting period ended on November 4, 1983. Section 43B was inserted in the Act by the Finance Act, 1983, with effect from April, 1, 1984. It was thus operative for the assessment year 1984-85. There was an outstanding balance of Rs. 5,978 in the mandi tax account. According to the Income-tax Officer, as this amount had remained unpaid, the provisions of. Section 43B were attracted. He, therefore, made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : II(1997)DMC243
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 7.4.1992 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Class I, Burhanpur passed in Criminal Case No. 2481/91 by which, the respondent was discharged of the offence Under Section 176 of the IPC.2. The respondent was prosecuted for an offence under Section 176 of the IPC on the ground that he did not give information about the offence of attempted murder in which Ms. Sangita received burn injury and of which later, Criminal Case No. 192/91 under Sections 498A, 307/34, IPC and under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered at the police station.3. From the perusal of the order dated 7.4.1992 of the learned Magistrate, it is clear that the record produced by the police in support of its case, itself indicated that the accused Prem Kumar had sent information in writing to the doctor who was a public servant. In this view of the matter, the learned Magistrate recorded the order of discharge.4. Section 176, IPC m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(0)MPLJ988
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. The claimants, in this appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. They seek enhancement. The amount determined by the Tribunal is said to have been paid to the appellants-claimants. No cross appeal or cross objections have been filed. The respondent New India Insurance Company has thus agreed to abide by the award. Even though no cross-objections have been preferred to this appeal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has argued that this was a case where in fact no compensation could be awarded at all and he submitted that the question of enhancement would not arise. According to him, claimants are heirs of the driver of the ill fated Tempo. This tempo suffered an accident on account of it being not kept in proper running condition. The question raised is that the claimants could not claim any compensation under the Motor Veh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : II(1997)ACC274; 1996ACJ1060
Dubey and Doabia, JJ.1. Appellant made a prayer that the service on respondent No. 2 be dispensed with, as he was ex parte before the Tribunal. Prayer is allowed.2. As regards respondent No. 1, it is stated that he is a driver and the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Therefore, the service of this appeal, which is for enhancement of the compensation, on the respondent No. 1 be also dispensed with. Prayer allowed.3. Counsel heard.4. The appellant at the time of accident was 22 years of age and was a student, who met with an accident on 11.11.1986 at about 7.30 p.m. when he was going on his motor-bike, by the truck which was driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent No. 3 at the relevant time. In the said accident, the appellant received fracture in right femur bone and a wound in the right thigh. He was admitted to J.A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior on 11.11.1986 where he was operated and thereafter he was discharged fr...
Tag this Judgment!