Madhya Pradesh Court December 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.
Bhatia Motor Stores Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(MP)385; [2006]152TAXMAN89(MP)
By The CourtThis is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The relevant facts for purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the appellant filed return of income for the assessment year 1990-91 on 8-10-1990 declaring income at Rs. 1,14,294 and claiming status of registered firm. The appellant also filed an application under section 184 of the Act in the prescribed form to treat the appellant as a registered firm. The assessing officer passed an order on 16-7-1991 under section 185 of the Act rejecting the application of the appellant to treat the firm as a registered firm and framed the assessment in the status of association of persons (hereinafter referred to as the 'AOP') and assessed the income at Rs. 1,96,689.3. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner (Appeals) and by order dated 24-7- 1992, the Commissioner (Appeals) annull...
Suresh Chand Talera Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(MP)153; [2006]282ITR341(MP)
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961.2. The relevant facts briefly are that the appellant carries on inter alia, the business of purchase and sale of silver and gold ornaments at Mandsaur in the State of Madhya Pradesh. For the asst. yr. 1996-97, the appellant filed a return on 2nd Sept., 1996, declaring an income of Rs. 3,94,558. A survey, under Section 133A of the IT Act (for short 'the Act') was conducted on 23rd Nov., 1999 and in the course of survey, the appellant made a declaration that there was a shortage of Rs. 2,28,000 in the difference of ornaments and cash. A questionnaire dt. 11th Aug., 1997 was served on the appellant requiring him to specify the basis of the valuation of the closing stock as per trading. The appellant answered the said questionnaire and thereafter the AO came to the conclusion that there was no consistency in the method adopted by the AO wherefrom true profits from his business could be worked out and, rejected the books of account...
Dr. Brijesh Lahoti Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(MP)499; [2006]282ITR349(MP)
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1981 (for short 'Act').2. The facts briefly are that a search was conducted under Section 132 of the Act in the residential premises in which the appellant as well as his elder brother Dr. Rajendra Lahoti reside. During the search, books of account of the appellant were found, but not seized. On the basis of the said books of account, the appellant filed a return disclosing income from his profession at Rs. 44,800 under Section 139(4) of the Act on 31st March, 1997. Thereafter, the Asstt. GIT, Circle 1, Indore, made an assessment of undisclosed income of the appellant for the block period comprising of asst. yrs. 1988-89 to 1996-97. Aggrieved by the order of assessment dt. 29th Dec., 1997, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, and the Tribunal held that for some of the assessment years, the appellant had no taxable income and for some other assessment years, the tax had been deducted at source. For t...
Dr. Brijesh Lahoti Vs. Cit and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(MP)499
By The Court:This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').2. The facts briefly are that a search was conducted under section 132 of the Act in the residential premises in which the appellant as well as his elder brother Dr. Rajendra Lahoti reside. During the search, books of account of the appellant were 'found, but not seized. On the basis of the said books of account, the appellant filed a return disclosing income from his profession at Rs. 44,800 under section 139(4) of the Act on 31-3-1997. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, Circle 1, Indore, made an assessment of undisclosed income of the appellant for the block period comprising of assessment years 1988-89 to 1996-97. Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 29-12-1997, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal, Indore Bench, lpdore, and the Tribunal held that for some of the assessment years, the appellant had no taxable income and for some other assessment years...
Sona Devi JaIn and ors. Vs. Dr. Omprakash Sharma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: AIR2006MP181
A.K. Saxena, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28-3-1990 passed in Civil Appeal No. 32-A/88 by the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh arising out of judgment and decree dated 5-9-1984 passed in Civil Suit No. 22-A/84 by the First Civil Judge Class-II, Tikamgarh, the appellants/plaintiffs preferred this appeal.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendant/respondent for redemption, recovery of possession of shop No. 12 situated in ward No. 1 Tikamgarh and for mesne profit on these grounds that the plaintiffs took the loan of Rs. 2,000/- from the defendant and they mortgaged the above mentioned property with the defendant. The mortgage deed is a registered document. The plaintiffs created usufructuary mortgage in favour of defendant by giving possession of the disputed shop to him. It was agreed upon between the parties that the defendant shall pay Rs. 50/- per month as rent after deducting Rs. 20/- per month of interest. The property was mo...
Jagdamba Grih Nirman Society Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT514
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. LA. 8891/05 for impleading name of respondent No. 1.2. By this application, petitioner is seeking permission to implead Suresh Singh, Sandesh Jain, Sandeep Jain and Rakesh Jain as respondents. In Paragraph 2 of the application petitioner has pleaded as under :--That, on 21-10-2005, the above case was fixed for hearing before Hon'ble Justice Shri Shantanu Kemkar, J. during the course of hearing the Hon'ble Court directed to implead the said Suresh Singh Gautam, Sandesh Jain, Sandeep Jain and Rakesh Jain in the array of respondents in the above case.3. From the perusal of the order-sheet dated 21-10-2005, no such directions were issued by this Court. The order-sheet dated 21-10-2005 reads thus:--Shri Sharad Verma, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 seeks time to file reply.A weeks time as prayed for is granted.List on 8-11-2005.Interim order passed earlier shall continue till next date of hearing.C.C. within 3 days.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submit...
Nandlal Vs. Mangibai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT300; 2006(1)MPLJ231
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. Does the Civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain a composite plea for eviction made by landlord covered by Section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 Did the First Civil Judge Class II, Jaora commit an illegality in passing the Order impugned dated 11-8-2004 in Civil Suit No. 23-A of 2002 These two questions are involved for determination in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Petitioner herein is defendant in an eviction suit filed by respondent - a widow landlady. It is not disputed that she is seeking petitioner's eviction from suit accommodation on the grounds covered by Section 12 (1) (a), (d) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for short). In written statement, petitioner opposed the claim in suit. Based on pleadings, learned Trial Court settled number of issues for trial, including issue No. 6 relating to jurisdiction of the Trial Court to entertain claim for evic...
Annop Vs. State of M.P. and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2061
ORDERS.K. Seth, J.1. Petitioner is assailing the validity of Order dated 22-6-2005. By the said order, State Government exercising powers conferred by Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 appointed respondent No. 2 as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct S.T. No. 156/2005 pending in the Court of First ASJ, Mhow.2. Petitioner is an accused of having committed alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 307/149. According to prosecution story, incident took place on 7-12-2004 leading to murder of Gaya Prasad and injuries to Sohan and Vijay. Vijay lodged the FIR setting the police machinery in motion and a criminal case was registered at Crime No. 442/04 at P. S. Kishanganj. After investigation, Police filed the charge-sheet against petitioner and other co-accused persons. That is how petitioner is arraigned before the Court below as one of the accused in the Sessions Trial. By order dated 22-6-2005, respondent No. 2 is appointed as Special Public Prose...
Vijay Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-09-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT523; 2005MPLJ415(SC)
S.S. Jha, J.1. This petition is admitted on the limited point pertaining to challenge of the order dated 17-12-91 Annexure P-9 issued by the State Govt. Department of Housing and Environment.2. Counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent No. 3 Indore Development Authority is constituted under Section 38 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam of 1973). Petitioner is challenging whether the lands of the authority constituted under the Adhiniyam can be transferred/leased out on a concessional rate in violation of Section 57 and rules known as Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Vikasit Bhoomiyon, Griho, Bhavano Tatha Anya Sanrachanaon Ka Vyayan Niyam, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). Counsel for petitioner submitted that the Town and Country Development Authority is established under Section 38 of the Adhiniyam, the said Authority prepares the scheme for development of town by acquiring the property or transf...
Kunoo Vs. Sewalal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-09-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MPHT449; 2006(2)MPLJ518
ORDERS.S. Dwivedi, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.PC filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17-5-2passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur whereby the order dated 25-1-02 passed by S.D.M., Rajnagar in Case No. 4/02 has been confirmed.2. The brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No. 1 Sewalal filed a report at P.S. Rajnagar that the present petitioner Kunoo obstructed the common way by constructing a wall on Survey Nos. 1258 and 1260 situated at Village Talgaon and thereby obstructing the common way of the agriculturists of the village which constitute the public nuisance. On this report, the police Rajnagar filed a complaint under Section 133 of the Cr.PC before the SDM Rajnagar. After giving opportunity to both the parties, the learned SDM Rajnagar vide impugned order dated 25-1-02 ordered for the removal of the concerning wall constructed by the present petitioner within a week. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »