Madhya Pradesh Court April 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.
B.V. Chiplunkar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(MP)496
ORDER1. This is an application submitted by the assessee under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, requiring the Tribunal to refer the question to this Court for being answered on a reference under Section 256(1) of the Act.2. It is brought to our notice that during pendency of this case, the question which was proposed to be referred to this Court was already answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by the decision of this Court reported in the case of CIT v. A.K. Ghosh : [2003]263ITR536(MP) . Under these circumstances, since the issue is already answered against the assessee in a reference made to this High Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act in the case of A.K. Ghosh (supra), we do not think that any useful purpose would be served in calling the question and then answering against the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of A.K. Ghosh. (supra), In other words, once the issue is already answered by the High Court on merits against the assessee in identi...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(MP)143; [2005]272ITR385(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 11th Aug., 2003 passed by Tribunal in case No. IT(SS)A 3 & 4/Ind/2002.2. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant and having perused the record of the case, we are of the considered view that sine qua non for entertaining an appeal under Section 260A of IT Act namely existence of substantial question of law is not present in this appeal. In other words, we have not been able to notice any substantial question of law, which can be said to have arisen out of the order rendered by the Tribunal in its appellate jurisdiction. As a consequence, we are afraid, we cannot admit this appeal and has to dismiss in limine holding that appeal does not involve any substantial question of law.3. Dispute essentially centres around in relation to certain additions/deletions made by AO in the total gross income of the assessee, who was being assessed for a block period 1989-90 to 1999-...
Nanda Bai Vs. Jagdish and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC80
A.M. Sapre, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether Tribunal was justified in confining the liability to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- on the Insurance Company out of the total compensation of Rs. 1,37,000/- awarded to the claimant, or in other words, whether Insurance Company can be made liable to suffer the entire award of Rs. 1,37,000/-. The impugned award is dated 15.9.1999, passed by 1st Additional Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dewas in Claim Case No. 96 of 1998. This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the aforementioned award for questioning the aforementioned finding against the claimant.2. Heard Mr. H.S. Rajpal, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.V. Dandwate, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2. None for the other respondent.3. If the contention of the appellant's Counsel was that the entire liability should have been fastened upon the Insurance Company the submissio...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vijaykumar Rajendra Kumar and Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(MP)487; [2004]269ITR382(MP)
1. We have heard, counsel for appellant on the question of admission, against an order dt. 16th July, 2003 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 263/Ind/1997 in this second appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act., In our opinion, the Tribunal has not decided any issue much less an issue of law or of facts and have simply dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and that too on the concession given by the Departmental counsel himself stating therein that the appeal has rendered infructuous.2. We, therefore, fail to see as to why and on what basis and for what purpose the Revenue has now come up in appeal before this Court. When the Departmental counsel who appeared on behalf of the Revenue himself conceded stating therein that the Revenue has no case before the Tribunal and that the appeal preferred by the Revenue has become infructuous and hence it be accordingly dismissed as such, there was nothing for the Tribunal to decide much less for the High Court to decide un...
Shreejee Chitra Mandir Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(MP)139
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 24th June, 2003 passed by Tribunal, in ITA No. 48/Ind/1998.2. It is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that a sum of Rs. 2,19,399 received by the assessee towards entertainment subsidy cannot be regarded as a revenue receipt in the light of a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT : 1997ECR787(SC) ?(2) Whether in the absence of any detailed discussion/examination of nature of subsidy received by the assessee by way of entertainment subsidy, could Tribunal record a finding against the assessee, by merely relying upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. (supra)?3. With the consent of the parties, the appeal was heard finally.4. The issue arises out of the asst. yr. 1994-95. The assessee is engaged in the business of ex...
State of M.P. Vs. Shyamsunder and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC617; 2005(2)MPHT64
A.K. Awasthy, J.1. Appellant/State has filed the appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 30.10.1993 in Criminal Case No. 21/1985 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biaora Rajgarh of acquitting the respondent accused from the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 324/34 and 323/34 of the IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Prevention of Dowry Act.2. The admitted facts of the case are that the marriage of complainant Seema (P.W. 2) was performed with accused Narendra on 6.5.1983 and accused Shyamlal and Sushila are the parents of accused Narendra, It is common ground that on the day of alleged incident 11.11.1984 the complainant Seema {P.W, 2) was staying in her matrimonial house with the accused person.3. The prosecution case is that on 11.11.1984 Ramcharan (P.W. 1) has lodged the written report in the Police Station Biaora that he is a Teacher in the school and the marriage of his daughter was solemnized about 10...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Skyline Auto Products P. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(MP)72; [2004]271ITR335(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J. 1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case, we are of the opinion that this second appeal filed by the Revenue (Income-tax Department), under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated July 30, 2003, in I. T. A. No. 22/Ind of 1998 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has no merit. In other words, in our opinion, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as is required to be made out for the purpose of entertaining the. appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The only question which is involved in the appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty imposed upon the assessee by the Assessing Officer under section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not proper. In the opinion of the Tribunal and in our opinion rightly, it was a case of a bona fide mistake rather than a deliberate mistake on the part of the assessee while calculati...
Jugal Kishore Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MPHT467; 2005(1)MPLJ176
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27-3-2004 by Additional Commissioner, Hoshangabad Division, Bhopal by which the Additional Commissioner without deciding the application filed by the petitioner under Section 52 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has fixed the case for hearing on 29-5-2004. Contention of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 challenged the partition order of Tehsildar dated 8-6-1978 before Sub Divisional Officer, after a period of near about 23 years. The aforesaid order was set aside by the SDO vide order dated 5-9-2003 on the ground that respondent No. 4 Imratlal is of unsound mind and without allotting any share to him, the Tehsildar has passed the order of partition.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of partition was challenged by Imratlal after 23 years, he was present in the Court and has signed the proceedings. In the circumstances, if the partition order was ...
Rahul Banerjee and ors. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MPHT58; 2004(4)MPLJ359
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 10-11-2003 whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the prayer of the applicants for discharging them and held that prima facie offences against them under Sections 147, 148, 353/149, 332/149, 307/149, 109, 120-Band 121A of IPC are made out.2. In brief the prosecution case is that on 2-4-2001, Collector Dewas alongwith Superintendent of Police, District Forest Officer, Special Police Force, Police Officials, Forest Officials and members of Van Samiti, in the morning at 8.00 A.M. proceeded to Punjapura village. They were attacked by the villagers and members of Adivasi Mukti Morcha Sangathan, some were residents of Village Mehendikheda. They all were about 200 in numbers. Even after warning given by the Collector, they started pelting stone and also used bow arrow, gofan, rifle, country made pistol and caused injuries to as many as 13-14 police officials and employees of the forest department. At t...
Gita Bai and ors. Vs. Shahid Khan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC256
ORDER1. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimants against an award, dated 12.8.1997, passed by M.A.C.T. Shajapur in Claim Case No. 284 of 1996. By impugned award, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim of the claimants. Facts in brief are these.On 28.7,1994, one Chhagan Lal boarded a Matador (a name of vehicle) Learing No. MP-04-C-6921 at a place called Kalisindh for going go Shajapur. When this vehicle came near Shajapur its door got opened resulting in Chhagan Lal falling out of the vehicle. Due to this falling out of the running vehicle, Chhagan Lal died almost on the spot. It is this incident that led to filing of the claim petition by the appellants herein. The compensation was claimed for the death of Chhagan Lal on the ground of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question by the driver. According to claimant, Chhagan Lal was in Government service as Gram Sevak. It was alleged that the N.A. No. 1 is the o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »