Madhya Pradesh Court October 2004 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. Vippy Solvex Products P. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2004
Reported in: [2005]273ITR375(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax), by the Tribunal to this court for answering the following question of law by this court which is said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal passed on September 17, 1993, in I. T. A. No. 662 and 663/Ind of 1998 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the development rebate on plant and machinery for which agreement to supply was entered into on December 28, 1973 ?'2. The facts in so far as they are relevant and stated in the statement of case drawn by the Tribunal may be taken note of in brief.3. The assessee is a private limited company. It was incorporated on September 7, 1973. It is engaged in the business of manufacture of oil and oil cakes, extraction of hydrogenated oil and deoiled cakes. 4. The assessment year involved in this reference is 1975-76, the releva...
Vishnu Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC1406; [2005(105)FLR675]
S.K. Seth, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.9.1998 passed by the Commissioner, Handlooms. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 31.3.1999 and the order dated 30.5.2000. By the order dated 11.9.1998, a sum of Rs. 25,276.66 has been ordered to be recovered from the DCRG payable to the petitioner. By order dated 31.3.1999, the absence from 7.9.1994 to 30.4.1996 has been regularised as dies non and by order dated 30.5.2000 it was communicated that as the period from 7.9.1994 to 30.4.1996 has been treated as dies non, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the revised pay-scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996.2. Relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the case are as under : At the relevant point of time petitioner was holding the post of Senior Inspector (Handlooms). He was sent on deputation to work as Officer-in-Charge of the Slate and Pencil Co-operative Society Limited, Mandsaur. For certain irregularities committed by the petitioner, a regular departmental enquiry ...
Cit Vs. Vippy Solvex Products (P) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-05-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN185(MP)
ORDERSapre, J. This is an application made under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) consequent upon the dismissal of their application made under section 256(1) of the Act by the Tribunal by order dated 1-9-1994, passed in R.A. No. 295/Ind./93 which in turn arises out of an order dated 17-9-1993, passed in ITA No. 663/ Ind./88 by the Tribunal. By this application the revenue has prayed for calling the reference from the Tribunal on the following question of law for answer by this court under section 256(1) of the Act.2. This is the question which the revenue wants this court to answer on merits:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in law in allowing Development Rebate on Plant and Machinery for which agreement to supply was entered into on 28-12-1973 ?'3. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri G.M. Chafekar, learned Senior counsel with Ku. V. Kasrekar, learned counsel f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijay Kumar Rajendra Kumar and Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(MP)245; [2004]271ITR337(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Tribunal to this court at the instance of the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) to answer the following two questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the direction issued by the Assessing Officer for special audit under section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was arbitrary and illegal and, therefore, the time taken in special audit cannot be excluded ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the assessment on the ground that the same is barred by limitation ?'2. Heard Shri R. L Jain with Ku. Mandlik, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Joshi, learned counsel for non-applicant.3. The question arises out of the assessment year 1985-86 for which the previous year has ended on March 31, 1985....
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahavir Drilling Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: [2005]273ITR201(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 256(1) of the IT Act at the instance of Revenue (CIT) to answer following questions of law which arise out of ITA No. 1107/1108/Ind/1993 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the learned Dy. CIT(A) cancelling the AO's order under Section 154 withdrawing investment allowance in respect of drilling machines even though the AO's action in rejecting such claim of investment allowance was in conformity with the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N.C Budharaja & Co. and Anr. : [1993]204ITR412(SC) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in upholding cancellation of the rectification order passed by the AO on 19th Oct., 1992, despite the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C. Budharaja & Co. (supra) on the ground that the afor...
Navneet Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(MP)312; [2005]273ITR482(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 256(1) of the IT Act at the instance of assessee arising out of the order of Tribunal, dt. 30th May, 1986, passed in ITA/358/Ind/1983 to answer following two questions of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal:'1. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in ignoring the objection in regard to the maintainability of appeal and whether the Tribunal has erred in accepting the fresh memorandum of appeal presented beyond the period of limitation and deciding the appeal on merits ?2. Whether the Tribunal has erred in reaching the conclusion about deemed concealment of income to the extent of Rs. 77,707 in the facts and circumstances of the case ?'2. Heard Shri G.M. Chafekar, learned senior counsel, with Shri Sarda, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for non-applicant.3. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, we do not find any merit in the same. In other words, it is difficult to answer the s...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chirag Ingots P. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(MP)335; [2005]275ITR310(MP)
A. M. Sapre J.1. This is an application made by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, consequent upon the rejection of their application made under Section 256(1) of the Act by the Tribunal vide order, dated November 16, 1998, passed in R. A. No. 148/Ind./98, arising out of the order dated June 25, 1998, passed by the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 545/Ind/94 in respect of the assessment year 1991-92. The applicant, i.e., the Revenue, had sought following the three questions of law for being referred to this court by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Act. However, the Tribunal declined to refer the questions holding that the questions proposed are essentially questions of fact and hence, they cannot be said to arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal in appeal.2. The following were the questions proposed to the Tribunal for being referred and the same are again being proposed in this application made under Section 256(2) ibid :...
Navneet Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN483(MP)
ORDERSapre, J.This is a reference made under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act at the instance of assessee arising out of the order of Tribunal dated 30-5-1986, passed in ITA/358/Ind./1983 to answer following two questions of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal'1. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in ignoring the objection in regard to the maintainability of appeal and whether the Tribunal has erred in accepting the fresh Memorandum of appeal presented beyond the period of limitation and deciding the appeal on merits ?2. Whether the Tribunal has erred in reaching the conclusion about deemed concealment of income to the extent of Rs. 77,707 in the facts and circumstances of the case ?'2. Heard Shri GM Chafekar, learned senior counsel with Shri Sarda, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri R..L. Jam, learned counsel for non-applicant.3. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, we do not find any merit in the same. In other words, it is difficult to answer the said...
Cit Vs. Mahavir Drilling Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(MP)43; [2005]142TAXMAN663(MP)
ORDERAM. Sapre, J:This is a reference made under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act at the instance of revenue (CIT) to answer following questions of law which arise out of ITA No. 1107/1108/Ind/1993 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the learned Dy. CIT (A) cancelling the assessing officer's order under section 154 withdrawing investment allowance in respect of drilling machines even though the assessing officer's action in rejecting such claim of investment allowance was in conformity with the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N. C. Budharaja & Co. & Anr. : [1993]204ITR412(SC) ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hontle Tribunal was justified in upholding cancellation of the rectification order passed by the assessing officer on 19-10-1992, despite the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C. Budhar...
Cit Vs. Chirag Ingots (P) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN427(MP)
ORDERSapre, J.This is an application made by revenue (CIT) under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act consequent upon the rejection of their application made under section 256(1) of the Act by the Tribunal vide order, dated 16-11-1998, passed in R.A. No. 148/Ind./98, arising out of the order, dated 25-6-1998, passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 545/Ind./94 in respect of assessment year No. 1991-92. The applicant i.e. Revenue had sought following three questions of law for being referred to this court by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Act. However, the Tribunal declined to refer the questions holding that the questions pro~ posed are essentially questions of fact and hence, they cannot be said to arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal in appeal.2. Following were the questions proposed to Tribunal for being referred and the same are again being proposed in this application made under section 256(2) ibid'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Tribunal was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »