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.
Ramaswamy Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1603; 2005(1)MPHT276; 2005(3)MPLJ208
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. By knocking the door of this Court under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused/appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Special Judge, Bhopal in Special Case No. 14/2002, convicting him under Sections 8(c)/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity 'the Act') and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh), in default of payment of fine he has been further directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment of two years.2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that informant, on 30-12-2001 gave information to Salim Khan, Station Officer In Charge of Hanumanganj that two persons are staying in room No. 3 of Hotel Banjara and they are having contraband article 'Brown Sugar' for sale. After recording the said information in Rojnamcha the Station Officer Incharge sent Constable Narayan to call two witnesses, thereaft...
Brij Maheshwari Vs. Arun JaIn and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)MPHT375; 2005(2)MPLJ289
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid petition under Section 482, Cr.PC for quashing the proceedings against her pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 423/2004.2. The non-applicant No. 1 Arun Jain has filed criminal complaint under Section 499/500 of the Indian Penal Code against five persons named Karan Singh Panwar, Prafulla Maheshwari, the Editor of daily newspaper Navbharat; Indore; Mr. Satyabhushan Sharma, Printer & Publisher of daily newspaper Navbharat, Indore; M/s. Ramgopal Investments Pvt. Ltd., Navbharat Press and City Reporter Mr. Tejkumar, daily newspaper Navbharat, Indore; alleging that non-applicant Karan Singh Panwar gave a false news to daily newspaper Navbharat, Indore and got it published in the newspaper in the edition of 28th July, 2001 under the heading and caption that:--^^fiFkeiwj ds fuyafcr lh-,l-ihv#.k dqekj tSu ij vkfnoklh Hkhy dh gR;k ds lk{k Nqikus dk vkjksi**Under this heading and captio...
Dineshkumar Shukla Vs. Smt. Neeta
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-2005
Reported in: AIR2005MP106; II(2005)DMC51; 2005(4)MPHT168; 2005(1)MPLJ362
S.K. Seth, J. 1. Noticing diametrical opposite views taken by co-ordinate benches learned single Judge has referred the following question to resolve the conflict of views.'Whether the Court is required to wait for a period of 6 months under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act when a joint petition for divorce is filed in a pending case instituted under Section 13(1) of the Act and which has been pending for more than 6 months ?'2. Facts lies in a narrow compass. On 26-11-1987, marriage between applicant and respondent was performed as per Hindu rites. Out of wedlock, one daughter-Prachi was born on 24-11-1988. It appears that relations between the parties instead of ripening into mutual love and affection for each other, soured and applicant and respondent were unable to enjoy the bliss of happy married life for long. On 8-1 -1996, applicant filed petition under Section 13(1) in the Court below seeking divorce and dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Altho...
Northern Air Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(MP)220; [2005]274ITR225(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. 13th June, 2000, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short hereinafter called Tribunal) in ITA No. 96/Ind/1996 in respect of asst. yr. 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, dt. 23rd June, 1992, when it was not in existence on the first day of the assessment year i.e., 1st April, 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 commenc...
Smt. Harbans Kaur Bhatia Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(MP)725; [2005]274ITR298(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. 20th June, 2000, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in IT(SS)A No. 19/Ind/1998. The appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a notice under Section 158BD of the IT Act could have been issued and was justified to the appellant, despite the fact that return for the relevant asst. yr. 1996-97 showing the receipt of Rs. 6.66 lakhs from sale of plot had already been filed and tax liability on the same was also met?'2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal need mention in brief to appreciate the issue sought to be raised in this appeal.3. A search operation was conducted under Section 132(1) of the IT Act in the residential premises of Shri Kripal Singh Bhatia, the husband of- assessee on 1st Feb., 1996.4. In th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.V. Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: [2005]274ITR334(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 August 21, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in I. T, A. No. 414 and 599/Ind of 1996. This appeal was admitted for final hearing by passing the following order on January 17, 2001 : 17-01-2001 : Shri R. L. Jain for the appellant.Heard on admission.I. T. A is admitted on the question raised in the appeal memo.Issue notice to the other side on payment of P. F. within a week. (R. D. VYAS J.) and (SHAMBHOO SINGH J.)'2. Heard Shri R. L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku V. Mandlik, learned counsel for the Revenue. None for the assessee.3. We have seen and perused the memo of appeal. What we find therein is that the issue raised in appeal relates to imposition of penalty on the assessee for the alleged concealment in the year in question. The penalty imposed by the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D and H Secheron Electrodes Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(MP)211; [2007]290ITR697(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an income-tax reference made by the Tribunal (Revenue) i.e., CIT in RA No. 192/md/1998, dt. 10th Dec, 1999 which in turn arises out of an order dt. 24th Sept., 1998, passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 519/Ind/1994 to answer following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the share of loss from joint venture could be set off against other income in the assessment of the member of joint venture/AOP, as assessed in the assessment of joint venture/AOP even though the other income of AOP is above taxable limit ?'2. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel, with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for the Revenue and Shri G.M. Chafekar, learned senior counsel with Shri M. Phadke, learned counsel for the assessee.3. At the outset, we may consider appropriate to mention as to how and in what manner the question referred supra, was dealt with or we may say decided by three tax ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vippy Solvex Products Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(MP)364; [2005]274ITR615(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an income-tax reference made by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the IT 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 20th May, 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 Section32A(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 asst. yr. 1989-90 of which the previous year is from 1st Jan., 1988 to 31st March, 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...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jyoti Overseas Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(MP)406; [2005]277ITR474(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by Revenue (CIT) under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 19th Sept., 2000, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in ITA No. 203/Ind/2000 This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law :'Whether, on the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was required to direct the AO to work out the direct cost of the finished goods of exported items vide paras 9 and 11 of their order when in fact what is required to work out the deduction under Section 80HHC, was the direct cost of the trading goods exported vide Clause (d) of Explanation below Section 80HHC(3) of the IT Act and when no inference could be drawn in respect of the direct cost of the trading goods exported in view of the assessee's export sources their inbeing their purchase of goods from the market and/or manufactured in their own premises ?'2. Heard Shri R.L...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premium Capital Market and Investment L ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(MP)680; [2005]275ITR260(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 December 11, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 81/Ind of 2000. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in entertaining the challenge to the assuming of the jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer in view of the provisions of Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground of validity of service of notice when such a point was not raised either before the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Income-tax ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the point of service of notice by the mode of substituted service as indicated by Order V, Rules 17 and 20, of the Code of Civil Procedure could be entertained by the Incom...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »