Madhya Pradesh Court November 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.
Ashok Kol Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT464; 2005(1)MPLJ35
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. The applicant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring a revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment, of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 354, IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment of one month.2. No exhaustive statements of facts are necessary for the disposal of this revision. Suffice it to state that in the night of the fateful date, according to the case of the prosecution, the applicant entered in side a Khalihan where the prosecutrix was sleeping and just to outrage her modesty, removed quilt as well as sari of the prosecutrix. According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix screamed, as a result of which Ramswaroop arrived at the spot.3. On the next day, i.e., 15-1-1999 FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix....
Harkatwat and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(MP)686; [2005]273ITR84(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, in R A. No. 105/ Ind of 1992, which in turn arises out of an order dated August 31, 1994, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 829/Ind of 1989 to this court for answering the following two questions of law :'1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, when under Section 69A the cash of Rs. 1,35,000 found on July 9, 1982, is not assessable in the assessment year 1984-85 ?2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty without disposing of the grounds of appeal claiming immunity under the amnesty scheme ?'2. In order to answer the question referred, the facts stated in the statement of case drawn by the Tribunal need to be taken note of infra.3. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1984-85. It pertains to imposition of penalty by...
Smt. Maya Bai and anr. Vs. Bhajan Lal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT318; 2005(2)MPLJ37
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 27-3-1996 of the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur passed in Sessions Trial No. 7/92, by which the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents of the charges under Sections 307, 294, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act also the alternative charge under the above Sections read with Section 34 of the IPC.2. It was alleged that on 20-10-1991 at about 7.40 p.m., the respondents had caused injuries to Mayabai (P.W. 1) and her husband Uttam Singh (P.W. 4) after abusing them in the public place with a view to cause death of Uttam Singh (P.W. 4) by striking him with Farsa (axe). As per prosecution case, the complainant Uttam (P.W. 4) and accused Motilal lived in adjoining houses and there was estrangement between the two. On the date of the incident, when the complainant Uttam (P.W. 4) was in his house alongwith his wife Mayabai, daughter Laxmi and son Leeladhar, the accused abused them and challenge...
Cit Vs. Prakashchandra Basant Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN541(MP)
Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other connected ITA Nos. 66 of 1999, 84of 1999 and of 2000 because the question involved in all these appeals are common and secondly, they relate to same assessee.2. This is an appeal filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act by the revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) against a common order dated 24-02-1999, passed by ITAT. in ITA Nos. 301/Ind/94, 624, 625, 916 and 917/Ind/96 in respect of assessment year 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93. It was admitted for final hearing on following two substantial questions of law by this Court:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no proportionate deduction on account of depreciation expenses of vehicles, ginning charges received from others and interest on deposits/borrowings should be made for working out eligible profits for the purposes of deduction under section 80HH & ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prakash Chandra Basant Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: [2005]276ITR664(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other connected I. T. A. Nos. 66 of 1999, 84 of 1999 and 1 of 2000 because the question involved in all these appeals is common and secondly, they relate to the same assessee.2. This is an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) against a common order dated February 24, 1999, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. Nos. 301/Ind./94, 624, 625, 916 and 917/Ind/96 in respect of the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93. It was admitted for final hearing on the following two substantial questions of law by this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no proportionate deduction on account of depreciation expenses of vehicles, ginning charges received from others and interest on deposits/borrowings should be made for wor...
Vippy Solvex Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(MP)508; [2005]273ITR107(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an income-tax reference made at the instance of assessee under Section 256(1) of the IT Act by the Tribunal by an order passed in RA Nos. 18 & 19/Ind/1996 which in turn arise out of an order passed by Tribunal on 12th Jan., 1996, in ITA Nos. 507-508/Ind/1991 to answer following question of law by this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the AO was correct in adjusting the brought forward business loss of the earlier year(s) against the business profit of the current year and since after such adjustment, the gross total income was computed at nil, the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. In order to answer the question referred supra, facts as stated in the statement of case drawn by the Tribunal need to be taken note of infra.3. The question relates to asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87. It relates to the manner in which the deduction is requ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abhishek Cineco Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2004
Reported in: [2005]275ITR280(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 (the ITAT) by sending a statement of case in RA. No. 101/Ind./95, dated January 31, 2000 which arises out of an order dated January 23, 1990, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 314/Ind./1992 (annexure D) to answer the following question of law said to arise out of the order, dated January 23, 1990 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 4,48,819 received by the assessee as subsidy was receipt of capital nature?'2. Heard Shri R. L. Jain with Ku. Mandlik, learned counsel for the Revenue and Shri R. Sarda, learned counsel for the assessee.3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the statement of case drawn by the Tribunal dated January 31, 2000, together with 4 annexures accompani...
Dr. (Mrs.) Geeta Reinboth Vs. Mrs. J. Clairs Brohier Through L.Rs. Mrs ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPLJ122; [2005]63SCL411(MP)
Shantanu Kemkar, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant No. 1 under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 5-4-2002 passed in Civil Suit No. 13-A/99 by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Jabalpur.2. On 23-2-1999, the plaintiff filed a civil suit for partition and possession of the suit property- Bungalow No. 2 Cantt. Jabalpur. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff Mrs. J. Clairs died and her legal representatives were brought on record and substituted as plaintiffs.3. The genealogy of the parties to the suit is given as under:-Charles, Maria______________________________________________________________|_______________________________________Charles Bernard H.A. Joesph Reinboth (Bachelor)+ Mrs Geraldine (Wife)___)____________________________________________________________________________________|_______________________________________________________________________Charles Eric Iris Aistom Merle Stanley Joan Pauline EuniceGera...
Vippy Solvex Products Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN13(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.This is an income-tax reference made at the instance of assessee under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act by the Tribunal by an order passed in RA Nos. 18 & 19/Ind/1996 which in turn arise out of an order passed by Tribunal on 12-1-1996, in ITA Nos:. 507 508/Ind/1991 to answer following question of law by this court'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessing officer was correct in adjusting the brought forward business loss of the earlier year(s) against the business profit of the current year and since after such adjustment, the gross total income was computed at nil, the assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. In order to answer the question referred supra, facts as stated in the statement of case drawn by the Tribunal need to be taken note of infra.3. The question relates to assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87. It relates to the manner in...
Cit Vs. Abhishek Cineco (P) Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN358(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J. This is a reference, made under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act at the instance of revenue (CIT) by the Tribunal (ITAT) by sending a statement of case in R.A. No. 101/Ind./ 95, dated 31-1-2000 which arises out of an order dated 23-1-1990, passed by ITAT in ITA No. 314/Ind./1992 (Annexure-D) to answer following question of law said to arise out of the order, dated 23-1-1990:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 4,48,819 received by the assessee as subsidy was receipt of capital nature?'2. Heard Shri R.L. Jain with Ku. Mandlik, learned counsel for revenue and Shri R. Sarda, learned counsel for the assessee.3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused statement of case drawn by Tribunal dated 31-1-2000 together with 4 Annexures accompanied by the statement of case.4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused entire paper book which as observed supra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›