Madhya Pradesh Court April 2004 Judgments
Ladha Traders Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(MP)48; [2004]269ITR183(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee to answer the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there is any legal material for the conclusion of the Tribunal that there is concealment of sale to the extent of Rs. 1,40,340 ?'2. The issue arises for the assessment year 1980-81. The assessee is a dealer in kerosene oil as also other petroleum products such as furnace oil, light diesel oil, etc. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer noticed several defects in the books of account. It was noticed that account books had also been seized by the sales tax authorities. It was further noticed that there were several kinds of discrepancies between the sales as recorded in the cash book and sales reflected in the cash vouchers. In the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, sales to the tune of Rs. 1,40,340 were found under-recorded in the cash book w...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Agrawal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(MP)369; [2005]272ITR454(MP); 2004(4)MPLJ513
Dipak Misra, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'), whereby the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question for answer by this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing depreciation on the plinth platforms at the rate prescribed for the 'building' and not treating them as 'plant' ?'2. To understand the factual scenario, it is necessitous to state certain facts. The assessee had filed a return showing loss of Rs. 7,66,455. A notice under section 143(2) of the Act of 1961 was served on him. It is pertinent to state here that the assessee had filed a return in the status of an association of persons consisting of 15 members. The source of income was indicated as rent received from the Food Corporation of India on hire of open plinth godowns for storage of foodgrains. The assessee had claimed ...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Agrawal Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN621(MP)
Dipak Misra, JThis is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), whereby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question for answer by this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing depreciation on the plinth platforms at the rate prescribed for the 'building' and not treating them as 'plant' ?'2. To understand the factual scenario, it is necessitous to state certain facts. The assessee had filed a return showing loss of Rs. 7,66,455. A notice under section 143(2) of the Act of 1961 was served on him. It is pertinent to state here that the assessee had filed a return in the status of an association of persons consisting of 15 members. The source of income was indicated as rent received from the Food Corporation of India on hire of open plinth godowns for storage of foodgrains. The assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bureau of Narcotics Vs. Devisingh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT398; 2004(4)MPLJ256
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. Both the aforesaid Criminal Revisions are being disposed of by this common order.2. The Department has filed two criminal revisions, one against grant of anticipatory bail to the respondent-Devisingh vide order dated 9-9-2003 by the learned Special Judge (under NDPS Act), Ratlam and another against grant of regular bail on 23-9-2003 by the same Court.3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the learned Special Judge has not considered the special provisions of bail as enshrined in Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity 'the Act'). According to the learned Counsel while granting anticipatory bail, the learned Court below having held that the respondent was the licensee and it appears that he had cultivated on the excess area of the land than the area allowed to him to cultivate in the licence, erred in granting bail. By this observation, the learned Trial Court found the prima facie case agains...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kunda Manolkar and ors. Vs. Jagdish Khandelwal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT9; 2004(2)MPLJ457
Subhash Samvatsar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging order dated 16-10-98 passed by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 45-A/96, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure is rejected.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have instituted a suit against the defendants for declaration and permanent injunction alleging that the land bearing Municipal No. 50/1/157 situated in Ward No. 50 near Idgah Kampoo, Lashkar, Gwalior was owned by the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement to construct a multistory building with defendant No. 2, who is a builder. As per agreement, ground plus three storeyed building namely Diamond Complex with basement was constructed and flats in the said building were sold. In the present case, the plaintiffs are flat owners in the said building. The said building is registered under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh P...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Yeshwant Singh Utam Singh Bais
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(MP)154
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this reference shall also govern disposal of other connected references arising between the same parties being IT Ref No. 104/1998, IT Ref No. 105/1998, IT Ref. No. 106/1998, IT Ref. No. 107/1998 and IT Ref. No. 109/1998.2. All these applications are made at the instance of Revenue under Section 27(3) of the WT Act, requiring the Tribunal to send/refer to this Court the question proposed for being answered by this Court under Section 27(1) of the WT Act. Since the Tribunal declined to make a reference prayed for by the Revenue and hence, these applications are submitted.3. The dispute in this case pertains to asst. yrs. 1983-84 to 1988-89. The dispute relates to the question as to which method of valuation should be applied for making valuation of property belonging to the respondent (assessee), which is in possession of his tenant--Postal Department. Assessee applied the method provided under Rule 1BB of the WT Rules. This issue was then ...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Kumar NitIn Kumari Memorial Trust Vs. Nimad Vanita Wishwa Khand ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT56; 2004(4)MPLJ333
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by defendant, aggrieved by order dated 8-12-2003 by which its application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has been rejected.2. Short facts of the case are that:-- the respondent filed a suit for eviction, permanent injunction and for recovery of mesne profit or damages against the petitioner on 31-1-1995. The aforesaid suit is based on pleadings that the suit accommodation belongs to the ownership of the plaintiff, which is a registered society and was registered by Registrar of Joint Staff Companies Center Provinces and Barar Nagar on 15-2-1949. The defendant in the year 1980 without permission of the plaintiff has started school in the name of Arvind Kumar Nitin Kumar Memorial Trust showing himself to be the Managing Trustee. Laxmi Das Shah died on 19-2-1987. After his death, his son Ranchordas Shah became the Managing Trustee. Ranchordas Shah also died and the defendant Atul Kumar...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Margret and ors. Vs. Suman Bai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT279
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. These two revisions have arisen from the common order passed by III Civil Judge Class-I, East Nimar, Khandwa whereby two applications, one (Succession Case No. 9/2001) filed by Smt. Suman Bai alleging her to be the widow of Peter Joseph and another application No. 8/2001 filed by Smt. Margret have been disposed on 12-10-2001. The Trial Court allowed the application of Smt. Suman Bai and passed the order granting succession certificate to her while the application filed by Smt. Margret for obtaining succession certificate was dismissed. Since there were two applications, though they were disposed of by the common order, Smt. Margret preferred two appeals which were numbered as Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4/2001 and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5/2001. The Appellate Court by a common order decided both the appeals and dismissed them. In this manner, these two revision petitions have been preferred.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. According to respond...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Indore Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(MP)149; [2004]269ITR459(MP)
ORDER1. This is an application made by the assessee under Section 256(2) of the IT Act requiring the Tribunal to refer the question of law proposed by the assessee for being answered by this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act.2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order passed by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal which may require this Court to answer the question proposed by the assessee.3. We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal dt. 21st March, 1998 (Annex. J to the paper book) and we find that while rejecting the application submitted by the assessee under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, the Tribunal has given correct and proper reasoning for rejection and for not referring the question to this Court under Section 256(1) of the Act.4. In short, the facts which were taken note of were that, in the case of the assessee, for the asst. yrs. 1973-74 to 1976-77, the T...
Tag this Judgment!Nepa Limited Vs. Sardar Santosh Singh Ajmani and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT328; 2004(3)MPLJ371; [2005]59SCL570(MP)
1.These appeals have been preferred by the appellant under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the order dated 10-9-2001 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Burhanpur. By an order dated 22-1-1999, Additional District Judge, Burhanpur directed Nepa Limited, Nepanagar, (a Government of India undertaking) to appoint an Arbitrator in respect of dispute regarding unpaid price of bamboo transportation by the respondent contractor. Common question arises in these appeals.2. The facts are noticed from M.A. No. 1440 of 2001, (Nepa Limited, Nepanagar v. Jaswant Singh). In terms of Clause 15 of the tender notice the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Nepa Limited appointed Shri R.C. Tandon, Sr. Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator requesting him to commence the arbitration proceedings. The contractor filed a dispute claiming Rs. 6,12,902.25 paise as unpaid price of bamboo transportation made during June to October, 1996 and further claimed interest @ 24% per annum upt...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »