Madhya Pradesh Court March 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.
Oswal Traders Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(MP)87; [1997]228ITR195(MP)
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. Upon a direction having been issued by this court by an order dated September 15, 1989, passed on the application of the applicant (assessee) under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, has drawn up a statement of the case and referred the following question of law arising out of the order of the said Tribunal :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 161(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were applicable and the assessee could not be assessed as an association of persons '2. The applicant is a private trust which was created by the settlor, Neelam Chand Berdia, vide a registered settlement deed on November 26, 1979. The trust was formed with a capital of Rs. 1,000 for the benefit of seven persons of whom two were major and five were minor children. The relevant clauses of the settlement deed read as follows :'2. For effecting the settlement, he, the set...
Savitridevi Wd/O Kailashchandra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ592
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner seeks quashing of notification dated 3-3-1991 (Ann. P/4) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and notification dated 26-6-1992 issued under Section 6 of the Act.2. In view of the order, which I propose to pass, it is not necessary to give in detail the facts of the case. The petitioner purchased a part of the land acquired on 3-12-1993 and 4-2-1994 whereas notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 3-2-1992 and under Section 6 of the Act on 26-6-1992.3. Various submissions have been advanced by Shri Maheshwari in support of this writ petition. However, Shri Chitale appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, raises a preliminary objection regarding the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition. In view of the fact that I am inclined to uphold the preliminary objection of respondent No. 3, I am not inclined to refer to other submissions advanced on behalf of the petitio...
M.P. Bhaya Vs. Ram Prakash Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)MPLJ436
S.C. Pandey, J.1. This is an appeal Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 21-7-1995, passed by IX Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Appeal No. 62-A/94, arising out of judgment and decree dated 6-5-1994, passed by IV Civil, Judge Class-II, Bhopal, in Civil Suit No. 66-A/93.2. The appellant is the tenant of respondent. He accepted the suit house No. 188 E-8, Bharatnagar, Shehpura, Bhopal on monthly rent of Rs. 800/- per month. The tenancy commenced from the first day of English calendar month and continued upto the last day thereof.3. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 66-A of 1993 against the appellant Under Sections 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(e) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The allegations in the plaint regarding the grounds Under Section 12(1)(a) (ibid) were that the appellant did not deposit the rent of the suit house from January, 1990 de...
Mahendra Kumar Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(MP)331
BY THE COURT :Petitioner has by this petition challenged the validity of Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, whereby sub-s. (3) to s. 80L has been introduced with retrospective effect, i.e., 1st April, 1976. The petitioner has also prayed that the assessment for asst. yr. 1985-86 may be declared illegal. He has also prayed that the penalty proceedings initiated under s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961, for imposition of penalty for the said period of assessment should be quashed. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the notices issued under s. 148 of the Act as illegal.2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is an assessee. He was assessed to income-tax by respondent No. 2, ITO B Ward, Ujjain. The sources of his income are house property and share income from three partnership firms namely - Babulal Porwal, Ujjain, Harishchand Ashok Kumar, Ujjain and Sharad Textiles Agency. During the asst. yr. 1985-86, he also derived income from bank interest amounting t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mansukhlal Pranjibhai.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(MP)63
S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J. :The Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court, as arising out of the order dt. 13th Feb., 1992 of the Tribunal in ITA No. 641/Nag/87, for the asst. yr. 1985-86 -'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the order of CIT(A) who deleted the addition of Rs. 1,12,269 made by the AO by disallowing the liability towards mandi tax payment by invoking provisions of s. 43B of IT Act 1961 ?2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law to hold that mandi tax was a fee and as such fall outside the purview of provisions of s. 43B ?3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law to hold that the decision of Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Lakhanpal National Ltd. : [1986]162ITR240(Guj) and the decision of the Tribunal. Indore Bench, Indore in the case of M/s. Gulanchand Kailashchand were not applicable ?'2. The respondent-assessee was a dealer in kirana and...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajdoot Hotel Enterprises Corporation P ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: [2000]241ITR277(MP)
1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue and the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for answer by this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the premises used as a hotel can be treated as a plant for the purposes of depreciation at higher rate ?'2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are these : The assessee derives income from hotel business by providing lodging, boarding, restaurant and bar facilities. It claimed depreciation on building claiming it to be a plant, at 15 per cent, as per the schedule provided under the Income-tax Rules. The Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation at 2.5 per cent, on building treating it as a first class building. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed depreciation on hotel building at the rate admissible for plant and machinery at the rate of 15 per cent. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Santosh Rice Mills
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: [1998]230ITR813(MP)
S. K. Kulshrestha, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in pursuance of the direction contained in order dated September 19, 1989, of this court in M. C. C. No. 235 of 1983 on an application having been made to this court by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jabalpur, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 45,370 as bad debt ?'2. The respondent was assessed in the assessment year 1977-78, the previous year ending on Diwali 1976. The assessee was supplying goods to one Seema Stores, Cuttack. The assessee noticed that the financial position of the Cuttack party had become rather weak and considered it inadvisable to have further transactions with the said firm. On July 27, 1976, the assessee entered into an agreement with the Cuttack party wh...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Alimbeg Salimbhai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(MP)124; [1997]224ITR166(MP)
1. Earlier an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was filed by the Revenue for calling a reference from the Tribunal and in pursuance of an order dated September 22, 1989, in M. C. C. No. 446 of 1986 (see : [1990]181ITR362(MP) ), the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question for answer by this court (at page 363) :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the liability of the assessee for the amount of Rs. 2,03,722 was an ascertained liability uner Section 26 of the Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, and that the said amount was deductible in computing the income of the assessee ?'2. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in manufacture and sale of bidis. The year of assessment involved is 1976-77, the previous year ending on Diwali of 1975. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 2,03,722 on account of holiday wages and leave with wages under Sect...
Smt. Shashi Varma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: [1997]224ITR107(MP)
1. This is a reference application under Section 256 at the instance of the assessee and the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for answer by this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in denying the assessee exemption under Section 54 in regard to surplus realised on the sale of residential property at Jabalpur and invested with the Delhi Development Authority for the acquisition of a flat ?'2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee is an individual and owned a property in Jabalpur. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee sold this property on December 29, 1981, and realised capital gains of Rs. 31,980. She invested a sum of Rs. 71,256 for the purchase of a flat in Delhi from the Delhi Development Authority. The sum represented the first instalment. Before the Income-tax Officer, exemption under Section 54 was claimed by the assessee in...
Rakesh Jhalani Vs. Commissioner, Nagar Nigam
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ685
ORDERC.K. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner seeks quashing of resolution dated 5-6-1995, whereby no confidence motion removing him from the office of the Chairman of Public Works Committee (hereinafter referred to as the committee) of Ratlam Municipal Corporation has been passed.2. Facts of the case lay in a narrow compass. According to the petitioner, he was elected as a councillor of Ratlam Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) and was also elected as a member of the Committee as also the Chairman of the said committee. By the impugned resolution dated 3-6-1995 he has been removed from the office of the chairman of the committee. The petitioner submits that under the scheme of the Act, there is no provision for passing any no confidence motion against a chairman of the Committee.3. Shri Bagdi learned counsel for the petitioner submits that filling of the post of a Chairman of the Committee being governed by the provisions of M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 195...