Madhya Pradesh Court November 2004 Judgments
Smt. Janki Bai Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MPLJ143
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. By this petition which was originally filed before the Tribunal, and after its abolition, it has been received in this Court for its adjudication, the petitioner is seeking relief of the quashment of the appointment order (Annexure A-7), dated 21-1-1993 of respondent No. 4 appointing him on the post of Teacher.2. In order to recruit Teacher in a school situated in Village Baderakala, an advertisement was published, a copy of which is placed on record as Annexure A-1. In the advertisement, the essential requirement for recruitment has been mentioned which reads as under:--^^;ksX;rk& dfu'B izkFkfed 'kkykvksaesa v/;kidksa dh O;oLFkk LFkkuh; vk/kkj ij dh tkuk gS vFkkZr vH;FkhZ dk 'kkykxzke dk fuoklh gksuk vfuok;Z gSA ;fn 'kkyk xzke es U;wuer vgZrk ds O;f miyC/ku gksus dh fLFkfr esa lehiorhZ xzke ds miyC/k U;wure vgZrk/kkjh ykskxksa dhfu;qf dh tk;sxhA bu fu;qf esa efgyk izR;kf'k;ksa dh izkFkfedrk nh tk;sxhAv/;kidksa dh U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk uohuikB~;e vFkok iw...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)MPHT210
Rakesh Saksena, J.1. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 2-11-1999 passed by the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 1998 convicting him under Sections 452, 506(B), 324 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 200/-, rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 200/- respectively. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.2. In nutshell the prosecution story is that complainant Jijabai lived in village Mungus Gadgaya with her husband Ramkrishna and husband's second wife Shashikala. It is alleged that in the night of 4-4-1998 when she was inside her house and was seeing television programme on the first floor, accused Govinda armed with a sword and accused Babarao with Bichhua came to her house and knocked the door. When she opened the doo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Neo Sack Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(MP)162
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J. 1. This is an IT Reference made under Section 256(1) of the IT Act at the instance of Revenue (CIT) by the Tribunal in RA No. 24/Ind/1998 arising out of an order dt. 21st Nov., 1997, passed in ITA No. 121/Ind/1994 (Annex. C) to answer the following question of law by this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee as the issue is squarely covered by the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Hind Syntex Ltd., MCC No. 314/92 and MCC No. 334/92, dt. 29th March, 1996, treating it receipt of capital nature 2. Facts of the case as mentioned in the statement of case duly supported by the annexures accompanying the statement of case, need mention in brief.3. The assessee (respondent) is a limited company having one industrial unit engaged in manufacture of certain commodities, The assessee was given a power subsidy. It was essentially for running the unit ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Aparajitha Shantilal Mahajan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(MP)295; [2005]272ITR470(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an income-tax- reference made under s. 256(1) of the IT Act by the Tribunal at the instance of Revenue (CIT) in RA No. 347/Ind/1993 arising out of an order dt. 6th Oct., 1993, passed by Tribunal in ITA Nos. 677 and 678/Ind/1990 to answer the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 55,677 particularly when the assessee had consented to the addition of Rs. 1 lakh, which was spread over by the Dy. CIT(A) over a period of three years ?'2. The question arises on these facts.3. For the assessment year in question, the dispute arose in regard to the actual expenditure incurred by an assessee on his building. There was some difference in the amount disclosed by the assessee and what the DVO to whom the case was referred for valuation had worked out. So, the question arose, what figure should ultimately be accepted for determining the cost of construction of the bu...
Tag this Judgment!Shreejee Chitra Mandir Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(MP)413; [2005]275ITR492(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 27th July, 2000, passed by Tribunal in ITA Nos. 463 and 464/Ind/1995.2. It is admitted on the following substantial question of law :'1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the subsidy received by the assessee under MP Naya Cinema Gharon Ke Nirman Ko Protsahan Yojna Ke Sahayata Anudan Niyam, 1982, from the State Government was a revenue receipt, after following the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd., Etc. Etc. v. CIT : 1997ECR787(SC) ?'3. With the consent of the parties, the appeal was heard finally.4. The issue arises out of the asst. yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94. The assessee is engaged in the business of exhibiting the films. They claim to have received a sum of Rs. 5,86,642 and Rs. 5,13,510, respectively, by way of an entertainment subsidy pursuant to rules framed by the State called MP Naye Cinema Gharon Ke Nirman Ko ...
Tag this Judgment!Srf Limited Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2005MP79; 2005(1)MPLJ481
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. Petitioner a registered company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its factory at Malanpur Industrial Area, District Bhind, M. P., has called in question tenability of order the dated 7-11-2001 (Annexure-Q) passed by the Collector of Stamps, Bhind directing for payment of stamp duty and penalty on a document, executed in connection with transfer of certain property conveyed by the deed (Annexure-F) dated 13th June, 1996 so also the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Annexure-T) dated 3-1-2002 and the consequential demand notices Annexure-R and Annexure-S dated 12-11-2001 and 22-12-2001 demanding stamp duty of Rs. 23,72,50,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 5,09,05,000/-.2. It is the case of the petitioner that originally their unit at Malanpur (M.P.) known as Tyre Cord ., who were owners of the undertaking which included the leasehold land, building, immovable pl...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Premier Proteins Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(MP)223; [2005]277ITR406(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an IT Reference made under Section 256(1) of the IT Act at the instance of Revenue (CIT) by the Tribunal in RA No. 12/Ind/1997 arising out of an order dt. 20th Dec., 1996, passed in ITA No. 911/Ind/1994 (Annex. C) to answer the following question of law by this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the power subsidy received by the assessee-company is a capital receipt and, therefore, not chargeable to income-tax ?'2. Facts of the case as mentioned in the statement of case duly supported by the annexures accompanying the statement of case, need mention in brief.3. The assessee (respondent) is a limited company having one industrial unit engaged in manufacture of certain commodities. The assessee was given a power subsidy. It was essentially for running the unit and was to be utilised in the shape of certain percentage in power expenditure. The question arose before AO as to whether powe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. T.A. Qureshi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(MP)683; [2005]275ITR352(MP)
A.M. Sapre J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against an order, dated October 14, 1998, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, in I. T. A. No. 552/Ind of 1990. The facts in brief are these.2. The respondent is an assessee. He is a doctor by profession at a place called 'Garoth' in District Mandsour.3. On July 18, 1985, CBI sleuths arrested the respondent while transporting a huge quantity of contraband article--narcotic drugs--heroin in jeep (Jonga) RSO 3592. This led to further raid in his residential premises. In this raid, one clandestine laboratory to manufacture heroin powder along with several contraband drugs were recovered. All these contraband articles were seized and proceedings under the Narcotic Drugs and Psycho-tropic Substances Act, 1985, were initiated against the assessee. We are not concerned with these proceedings.4. So far as the proceedings under the income-tax are con...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Vs. State Bank of Indore and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: III(2005)BC40
P.K. Jaiswal, J.1. Heard on the question of admission.2. This revision is filed by the defendant No. 2/Guarantor against the judgment and decree dated 11.1.1999 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Vidisha (Camp Basoda) in Civil Appeal No. 46-B/98, whereby judgment and decree dated 10.1.1998 passed by the IInd Civil Judge, Class II, Ganjbasoda has been confirmed.3. The facts of the case are in brief that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit for realisation of Rs. 11019.66 against the defendants. The respondent No. 2/defendant No. 1 Bhagwandas was granted cash credit facilities to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner/ defendant No. 2 and respondent No. 2 executed demand promissory note Ex. P. 3 dated 10.2.1981 . The defendant No. 2 executed Guarantee Bond Ex. P. 4 (Forum-1). The defendants failed to repay the amount and hence Civil Suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 11019.16. The defendant No. 2/Guarantor filed written statement and denied the liability on the ground tha...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Premier Proteins Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN147(MP)
ORDERSapre, J. This is an Income Tax Reference made under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act at the instance of revenue (CIT) by the Tribunal in R.A. No. 12/Ind/97 arising out of an order dated 20-12-1996, passed in ITA No. 911/Ind/94 (Annexure-C) to answer the following question of law by this Court:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the power subsidy received by the assessee company is a capital receipt and, therefore, not chargeable to income-tax?'2. Facts of the case as mentioned in the statement of case duly supported by the Annexures accompanying the statement of case, need mention in brief.3. The assessee-respondent is a Limited Company having one industrial unit engaged in manufacture of certain commodities. The assessee was given a power subsidy. It was essentially for running the unit and was to be utilized in the shape of certain percentage in power expenditure. The question arose before assessing offi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »