Madhya Pradesh Court January 2005 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.
Northern Air Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN551(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.This is an appeal filed by the assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order dated 13-6-2000, passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in ITA No. 96/Ind/1996 in respect of assessment year 1992-93. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law :'1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the CIT(A) was correct in exercising power under section 154 of the Act, when the facts as to application of notification required investigation ?2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the Notification No. 1953, dated 23-6-1992, when it was not in existence on the first day of the assessment year i.e., 1-4-1992 ?3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that an industry, though established in a rural area and also commenced its...
D and H Secheron Electrodes (P.) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN689(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J. This is an income-tax reference made under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act by the Tribunal at the instance of assessee in WA, No. 71 /Ind./96 which in turn arise out of I.T.A. No. 998/Ind./91 to answer following questions of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty notice issued to the assessee was proper and the penalty proceedings initiated thereon were legal and no blanket proceedings were initiated against the assessee?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that legal requirement of satisfaction is of only the prima facie satisfaction of the assessing officer. In respect of' concealment of income of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income before issuing notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act?'2. In substance, the question that arise for consideration in this ref...
Ferro Concrete Construction (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN885(MP)
ORDERSapre, J. This is an Income-Tax Reference made at the instance of assessee under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act in R.A. Nos. 48,49 and 50/Ind./97 which arise out of ITA Nos. 902 and 221/Ind./95 and 570/Ind./94 decided by Tribunal on 11-3-1997 to answer the following questions of law:-''1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of sale proceeds of empty bags and containers, drums, etc., and interest on F.D. has not nexus for calculation of profit of the assessee's business at the estimated rate of net profit adopted for the purpose?2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the authorities below in holding that the receipt of the sale-proceeds of empty bags and interest on F.D. do not form part and parcel of the contract business and thus the amount so received at Rs. 3,85,578 is to be assessed separately under the head, 'Income from other sources'3. Whether, on the facts and in the ci...
Cit Vs. Vippy Solvex Products Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN714(MP)
ORDERAM Sapre, J.This is an income-tax reference made by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act at the instance of revenue (CIT) in RA No. 99/Ind/1993, which arises out of ITA No. 897/Ind/1992, decided by Tribunal on 20-5-1993, to answer following question of law said to arise out of the (order of the Tribunal) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that assessee was entitled for investment allowance under section 32A(8B) amounting to Rs. 36,18,035 on the new solvent extraction plant ?'2. The assessee (respondent herein) is a limited company. The question involved in this reference relates to assessment year 1989-90 of which the previous year is from 1-1-1988 to 31-3-1989, i.e., 15 months. The assessee claimed that they have installed a new solvent extraction plant of 200 MT per day capacity during the period April, 1987, to January, 1988. According to assessee, production in the plant began from 9-3-1988...
State Bank of Indore Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: (2006)198CTR(MP)617
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J. This is an appeal, filed by an assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order dated 10-5-1999, passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal herein after referred to called Tribunal, in I.T. Appeal No. 763/ Ind./92 and I.T.A. No. 760/Ind./92. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following two substantial questions of law:'1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case in view of section 80M of the Act, collection charges can be artificially and notionally attributed for determining the net dividend income ?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the allowance claimed by the appellant under section 32AB of the Act be modified each time the assessment takes place ORWhether in the facts and circumstances of the case, modification of the deposit and the deduction claimed by the assessee thereon under section 32AB of the Act vis-a-vis the income in the head 'Profits and gains' from business and profession could be done, when a...
Sunherilal Sahariya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR93]
S.K. Gangele, J.1. Earlier this petition was filed before M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Indore as Original Application No. 1612/2000. After abolition of the Tribunal, it has been transferred to High Court.2. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the impugned order dated 21.3.2000 (Annexure A/10). By the said order 25% amount of the pension of the petitioner has been forfeited permanently under Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (here-in alter referred to as Pension Rules).3. Petitioner, who was an employee of Co-operative Department, was working as Accounts Officer. Thereafter, he was sent on deputation to M.P. State Co-operative Consumer Federation. He was there from 14.6.1986 to 10.8.1987 and during that tenure, he committed gross irregularities and caused a loss of Rs. 3,10,922/- to the Federation. Petitioner was suspended and his headquarters was fixed at Tila Mandla.4. On 21.9.1987, a departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner and si...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Kumar and Party
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: [2008]299ITR35(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 July 3, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in I.T.A. No. 340/Ind./99. This appeal was admitted for final hearing by passing the following order on December 4, 2000:4-12-2000Shri RL Jain, L/c for the Revenue.Admit.Notice.(Bhawani Singh)(Shambhoo Singh)Chief JusticeJudge.2. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned Counsel for the Revenue. None for the assessee.3. Under Section 260A of the Act, the appeal can be admitted for final hearing only when it involves any substantial question of law. Sub-section (3) then obliges the High Court to formulate substantial question of law which in the opinion of the High Court is involved. Sub-section (4) then empowers the High Court to hear and decide the appeal only on the question so formulated. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›