Madhya Pradesh Court April 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. Smt. Laxmidevi Natani,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR198(MP)
A.R. Tiwari, J.1. The applicant (Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal), has filed these three applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), seeking direction to the Tribunal to state the cases and refer the undernoted common question of law arising out of the order dated July 27, 1992, passed in I. T. A. No. 1040/Ind of 1991, on rejection of the application filed under Section 256(1) of the Act registered as R. A. No. 248/Ind of 1992 for the assessment year 1987-88 on October 25, 1993 ; order dated July 27, 1992, passed in I. T. A. No. 1041/Ind of 1991 on rejection of the application filed under Section 256(1) of the Act registered as R. A. No. 249/Ind of 1992 for the assessment year 1987-88 on October 25, 1993 ; and order dated July 27, 1992, passed in LT. A. No. 1100/Ind/1991 on rejection of the application filed under Section 256(1) of the Act registered as R. A. No. 250/Ind of 1992 for the assessment year 1987-88 on October 25, 1993, respectivel...
indore Bottling Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(54)ECC73; 1997(94)ELT70(MP)
ORDER1. The petitioners have prayed that the impugned Notification No. 203/87 dated 9-9-1987 (Annexure F) may be declared as unconstitutional, illegal and the same may be quashed whereby the import facility given to the Aerated Water industries has been withdrawn.2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are thus : The 1st petitioner is proprietory concern, owned and managed by a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters. The 2nd petitioner is a shareholder and Director of the petitioner-company. The petitioners have a factory at Indore where they manufacture aerated waters or soft drinks under the trade names of 'Thumps Up', 'Bisleri', 'Club Soda', 'Gold spot', 'Limca and Rimzim'. In the manufacture of these Aerated Waters, the petitioner-company use the following raw materials :-(i) Sugar,(ii) Carbon dioxide,(iii) Citric Acid,(iv) Non alcoholic Beverage Base (NABB).After the Aerated Waters are manufact...
Sanjiva Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(54)ECC75; 1997(94)ELT290(MP)
1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the Notification No. 223/87, dated 22-9-1987 (Annexure D) may be quashed and in alternative, it is prayed that the said Notification No. 223/87, dated 22-9-1987 may be held in contravention of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986.2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are thus : The petitioner is a Private Company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of aerated waters under the trade name of 'Thrill', 'Rush' 'Sprint' and 'McDowell soda' under the franchise agreement with M/s. McDowell & Company Ltd., Madras. The petitioner is a small scale industry and is registered as such with the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Bhopal, and as such, it is entitled to the concession available to the small scale industries under the various Central and State enactments. It is also getting subsidy from the State Government in its capacity as a small scale industry. This company manufactures the aforesaid brands ...
State of M.P. and ors. Vs. Jitendra Kishore Bhargava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: AIR1997MP56
Mathur, C.J.1. Both the letters patentappeals are connected; therefore, they aredisposed of by a common order. Respondent Jitendra Kishore Bhargava filed a first petition -- W.P. No. 3111 of 1995 before this Court claiming admission to the Post-Graduate Course and the learned single Judge in that petition passed order dated 17-10-1995 relying on Rule XI(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Post-Graduate Entrance Examination Rules, 1995 (for short the Rules of 1995) that the petitioner should file a representation before the State Government along with certified copy of this order and the State Government shall decide the representation within two weeks after the presentation of the representation by a speaking order regarding subsequent counselling in terms of above Rule XI(i) holding of second counselling even after Second July; if there is no other impediment in the way: Though it was contended before the learned single Judge that the representation was made to the Director of...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.P. State Handloom Weavers Co-operativ ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: [1998]231ITR243(MP)
1. This is an application 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 to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the activities of the society are in the nature of cottage industry as contemplated in Section 80F(2)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thus, entitled for exemption ?'2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are thus : The assessee is a co-operative society acting as the apex society for the primary societies of weavers. It supplies raw material and machinery to the primary societies to be supplied to weavers and then purchases the manufactured goods from them to be sold at fair price in the market. In response to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, the assessee filed its return at nil after claiming exemption under Section 80P of the Act. It was submitted...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohammad Ali Gulam Ali
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: [1998]231ITR734(MP)
N.K. Jain, J.1. In all the aforesaid four miscellaneous cases, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal, has filed applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), seeking a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, to state the cases and refer the proposed common questions of law, as extracted below for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the legal fiction of treating a registered firm as unregistered firm as provided in Section 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has to be carried to its logical end so far as it relates to levy of penalty under Section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that for the purpose of levy of penalty the amount of advance tax paid by the registered firm should...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Automobiles
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: [1998]230ITR270(MP)
1. This is a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has stated the case pursuant to an order of this court dated August 5, 1991, and the following question has been referred for our answer :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on a finding that the newly constituted firm was genuine ?'2. We have gone through the reference application. It is a very short matter which relates mostly to the facts and no question of law is involved.3. The assessee-firm came into existence under a reconstituted deed of partnership executed on December 23, 1977, with effect from November 12, 1977. Shri Nemichand and Bhanwarlal were carrying on partnership business in the name of Punjab Motors along with three other partners. All the partners of the firm agreed to dissolve the firm from November 11, 1977. Shri Nemichand and Bhanwarlal agreed ...
Anil Kunj Bihari Saraf Vs. Namboodas S/O Shankarlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)MPLJ522
ORDERD.P.S. Chouhan, J.1. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Ashok Lalwani submitted that in this case the appellant has not made the deposit as required under the first proviso to section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and he has addressed the Court that in the first proviso (aforesaid) the word 'entertain' is used which signifies 'not at the admission stage' but signifies the stage of final hearing.2. Thereafter he modified the submission that he means to submit that the condition of entertainment of the appeal regarding the deposit of the amount is mandatory provision is between the stage of admission and final hearing; and as such, since the case is posted in motion hearing, he is not required, under the law, to make the deposit. The stage of depositing the amount as mentioned in the proviso, would come after the appeal is admitted in the motion hearing.3. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on, on the provisions of Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code....
Anil Saraf Vs. Namboodas and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ1411
D.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ashok Lalwani submitted that in this case the appellant has not made the deposit as required under the first proviso to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and he has addressed the court that in the first proviso (aforesaid) the word 'entertain' is used which signifies 'not at the admission stage' but signifies the stage of final hearing.2. Thereafter, he modified the submission that he means to submit that the condition of entertainment of the appeal regarding the deposit of the amount is mandatory provision in between the stage of admission and final hearing and as such, since the case is posted in motion hearing, he is not required, under the law, to make the deposit. The stage of depositing the amount as mentioned in the proviso would come after the appeal is admitted in the motion hearing.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the provisions of Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, Clause (b) ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Triveni Bai and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ950
S.K. Dubey, J.1. Appellant insurance company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 aggrieved of the award dated 23.3.1992, passed in M.V.C. No. 175 of 1989 by IXth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur. The claimants have filed cross-appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by the aforesaid award. Both the appeals are disposed of by this common order.2. The deceased Laxmi Narayan, aged 35 years, met with an accident caused by mini bus No. MKJ 1555 owned by Amolak Singh, driven by Harpeet Singh and insured by the appellant insurance company. At the relevant time on 18.2.1986 the cyclist Laxmi Narayan was going on his left side of the road at Kanchghar Chowraha near Railway Station, Jabalpur, who was dashed by the mini bus, as a result of which the deceased received multiple injuries and died instantaneously. The legal representatives of the deceased filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »