Madhya Pradesh Court February 1999 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. Labhsingh and Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: [2000]245ITR608(MP)
1. All these three applications made by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act,' 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), are disposed of by this common order.2. It appears that the assessee was granted registration for the assessment year 1983-84 by the Assessing Officer vide order dated August 22, 1985. Thereafter the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 185(1)(b) for the same assessment year and denied registration to the assessee on the following grounds :(I) partners of the firm comprised Shri Iqbal Singh, his wife, his daughter and four sons and one daughter-in-law ; (II) except Iqbal Singh, others do not have any independent source of income. 3. This order was also passed for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86.4. The assessee took an appeal against these orders and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by order dated March 18, 1993, ruled thus :'If the Assessing Officer subsequently found that the firm was not genuine then he should have cancelled the reg...
Samta Construction Co. Vs. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Deputy Director of Inco ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: [2000]244ITR845(MP)
Dipak Misra, J. 1. The justifiability of the action of the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation) and the Commissioner of Income-tax, respondents Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, herein, requisitioning the bank draft of the petitioner in exercise of power under Section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on December 14, 1996, is called in question in the present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, a partnership firm.2. The essential facts which require narration for the present litigation are that the petitioner firm is engaged in the business of executing various kinds of work, and contract operation of quarrying of sand on lease basis from the Government of Madhya Pradesh. As set forth in the petition, the partnership-firm submitted earnest money of Rs. 72,60,000 (seventy two lakhs sixty thousand only) in a joint venture along with others with theMadhya Pradesh Matsya Vikas Nigam Limited (her...
Ram Vishnu Gupta and 2 ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC489
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Despite stringent laws and provisions for deter- rent punishments in them, crimes against women could not be contained because of absence of change in attitude of society towards women and the curse of age-old vicious customs.2. In this case, the victim is a graduate married young girl Sushma Gupta who was found dead with extensive burns all over her body and eight injuries on her person. She has left behind her child Dheeraj, only aged about one year at the time of her death.3. Deceased Sushma was daughter of Amarnath Gupta (P.W. 4) who is an Advocate at Allahabad. Ravi Gupta and Rajesh Gupta (P.W. 11) are her brothers. Nirmala (P.W. 5), Manjula (P.W. 6) and Sarla (P.W. 14) are her sisters. Nathulal Gupta (P.W. 15) is the husband of Sarla and is brother-in-law of the deceased.4. Sushma was married to Pankaj Gupta (appellant No. 2) on 2nd of February, 1987. He is son of Ram Vishnu Gupta (appellant No. 1) who is an Advocate practising at Shahdol. Accused-appella...
Kunjlal Das S/O Chhabil Das and ors. Vs. Preetam Chand S/O Suklal and ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)MPLJ635
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. This order shall dispose of M.P. No. 145/89, Kunjlaldas and Ors. v. Preetamchand and Ors., M.P. No. 147/89, Kunjlal Das and Ors. v. Milluram and Ors. and M.P. No. 148/89, Kunjlal and Ors. v. Hakeemchand and Ors. as the common question arises for consideration in these cases.2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petitions are that one Chhabildas filed an application under Section 5 of M.P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976, inter alia pleading that particular agricultural lands were given by him to the respective purchasers in fact as a security against the loan advanced by the said money lender, therefore, and as the transaction was a prohibited transaction of loan, the transaction be declared as a nullity and possession be restored back to him. After notice, the respective defendants/respondents appeared before the Sub-Divisional Officer who...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Awaa Rao Sugar Company Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(MP)83
ORDERB.A. KHAN, J:The Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question, said to be the question of law arising out of its order dt. 12th June, 1995 for opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that no penalty for late filing of return under s. 9 of the Surtax Act, 1964, can be levied if the return, though belated, is filed before the completion of assessment?'2. Facts are not in dispute. The assessee was to file the return for the asst. yr. 1973-74 under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, by 30th Sept., 1973. The company, however, filed the return on 22nd Dec., 1977. The assessment was, however, completed on 27th March, 1992. Since the return was filed by the assessee beyond the prescribed time, AO initiated penalty proceedings under s. 9(1) of the Act and put the company on show-cause notice. The company replied to the notice contending that return was filed declaring chargeable loss at R...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lablisingh and Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(MP)568
ORDERBY THE COURT:All these applications made by the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act (for short, 'the Act'), are disposed of by this common order.2. It appears that assessee was granted registration for the assessment year 1983-84 by assessing officer vide order dated 22-8-1985. Thereafter assessing officer passed order under section 185(10) for the same assessment year and denied registration to the assessee on following grounds.(i) Partners of the firm comprised of Shri Iqbal Singh, his wife, his daughter and four sons and one daughter-in-law;(ii) Except as Iqbal Singh others do not have any independent source of income.This order was valid for asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86.3. Assessee took appeal against these orders and Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 18-3-1995 ruled thus :'If the assessing officer subsequently found that firm was not genuine then he should have cancelled the registration under section 186(1). If no action under section 186 is taken cancel...
Komal Prasad Soni Vs. Smt. Aarti Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC145
S.C. Pandey, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.1.1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Janjgir, District Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 43-A of 1993. The Court below has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.2. The appellant filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. It was claimed by the appellant that he had married the respondent on 1.2.1990 at Champa, according to Hindu rites. Thereafter, they cohabited together for about VA months. However, the respondent did not want to live in the joint Hindu family house alongwith the appellant and, therefore, demanded that the appellant should live with her in a separate house. Thereafter, she also treated the appellant with cruelty and did not behave with him properly. She threatened that she shall commit suicide. In the year 1990 she had gone back to her father and she had stated that the appellant was of a bad character. On these ground...
Alpana theatre Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ253
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the imposition of the show tax at the rate of Rs. 10/- per show. According to the petitioner, Municipality Gobara Nawapara is a class-Ill Municipality and is governed by the Provisions of M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Municipality Act). According to the petitioner, the rate of show tax was Rs. 3/- per show for the matinee (12.00 noon and 3.00 p.m. show) and Rs. 4/- for the night show i.e. 6.00 and 9.00 p.m. show. This tax was in vogue from 3-1-1976 upto 30-6-1986. According to the petitioner, the Municipality increased or enhanced the show tax without following the provisions of Section 127 of the Act. He submits that he could learn about the enhancement when demand dated 24-4-1987 for a sum of Rs. 7,160/- for the period between 3-1-1986 to 30-6-1986 was made against him. According to him, he objected to the said demand. He however deposit...
Ashok Kumar Kaurav Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)MPLJ729
ORDERS.K. Kulshreshta, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 11-9-1996 (Annexure P-7) of the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Services, Narsinghpur, by which he has directed the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Nargi, to appoint Panchayat Karmi in the said Gram Panchayat after inviting applications in this behalf and it has been clarified that the removed Secretary of the Panchayat viz., Laxman Pd. Sharma (respondent No. 8) would also be free to make such an application. By amendment in the petition, the petitioner has also challenged the appointment of respondent No. 8 by order dated 14-8-1997 [Annexure 11(D) passed by the Up-Sarpanch of the said Gram Partchayat, by which the respondent No. 8 has been appointed as Panchayat-Karmi-cum-Secretary of the said Panchayat.2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that by Annexure P-l, the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Services, (respondent No. 5), under the instructions of the Collector, Narsinghpur, ...
Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Vs. P.O., Labour Court and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR70]; (2001)IIILLJ651MP
C.K. Prasad, J.1. In both the writ petitions common question of law arises and as such they are being disposed of by this common order.2. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, handed over the award on September 29, 1986 (Document-12 in M.P. No. 466/1987. Document-12 in M.P. No. 468/1987) and directed for reinstatement of the workmen in service, but without back wages. By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit i.e. employer seeks to challenge the same on the ground that the counsel engaged in the Labour Court had no authority to file compromise of the dispute. Such compromise was arrived at by the petitioner in other cases and the matter pointedly came up before this Court for consideration in M.P. No. 1406/1987 disposed of on July 24, 1997. In the said case, it has been held as follows:'In this petition the only ground urged on behalf of the petitioner B...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »