Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2007]291ITR336(MP)
A.M. Sapre, J.1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall govern the disposal of another connected appeal being I.T.A. No. 13 of 2003, because both these appeals involve identical points and secondly, both the appeals are filed by the same assessee.2. This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against an order dated September 30, 2002, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore in I.T.A. No. 625/Ind./91. The appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:Whether a return was filed under the Amnesty scheme, whether a regular order of assessment based on an earlier return could have been passed after subsequent filing of such Amnesty scheme ?3. Without taking note of the facts in detail, as to on what date the returns were filed and on what date the assessment orders were passed on those returns, the question that really arises for consideration in these two appeals which arise out of the assessment ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007ACJ1549
S.S. Jha, J.1. This appeal is by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. Other findings as to factum of accident, rash and negligent driving and insurance of vehicle are not under dispute. Question involved in the case is about quantum of compensation.2. The Claims Tribunal has determined the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 12,000 per annum and determined the compensation accordingly.3. The counsel for appellants submitted that Claims Tribunal in para 16 of award has recorded a finding that there is no dispute as to the income from daily wages of deceased, which is Rs. 50 per day, but the Claims Tribunal determined the income at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month treating that he was getting the wages for 20 days in a month. The learned Counsel for appellants submitted that evidence on record has not been considered properly. The claimants' evidence about the income of deceased has not been considered. Gulab Bai, AW 1, has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs. 125 per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2008]298ITR363(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (IT Department) (sic-assessee) under Section 260A of the IT Act, against the order, dt. 28th April, 2005, passed by Tribunal in ITA No, 397/Ind/2001.2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether appeal involves any substantial question of law out of the impugned order of the Tribunal or in other words, whether two questions proposed by the appellant involve any substantial questions so as to admit the appeal. It is not in dispute that the pre-requisite of admitting any appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act is to find out involvement of substantial question of law.3. Heard Shri P.M. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the appellant.4. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, we are of the view that appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under Section 260A of the Act and hence, it merits dismissal in limine, resul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : IV(2006)BC217; 2006(2)MPHT67; 2006(2)MPLJ82
ORDERS.C. Vyas, J.1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner has challenged the question of cognizance, of the offence punishable under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act (In short called as 'the Act') taken against him by JMFC, Indore.2. Short facts of the case are that petitioner obtained a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the respondent and for repayment of said amount of loan one cheque bearing No. 125650 of Shubhlaxmi Mahila Cooperative Bank Ltd. amounting to Rs. 50,000/- was executed in favour of the respondent. When the cheque was presented for collection to the bank of complainant, then it was bounced with an endorsement 'opening funds insufficient', then complainant/respondent issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the cheque amount deducting an amount of Rs. 5,000/-, which was paid in the meantime by the petitioner to the respondent. Said notice was received by the petitioner but no payme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2006)201CTR(MP)160; [2006]283ITR346(MP)
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), filed by the CIT, Bhopal, against the order dt. 11th Dec, 2000 of the Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, passed in IT(SS) No. 66/Ind/1997. 2. The facts briefly are that search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the Act were carried out under the premises of the respondent, Shri Purushottam Khatri, Shri C.L. Khatri and their group during 18th Oct., 1996 to 30th Oct., 1996. Thereafter, block assessment was made under Section 158BC read with Section 143 by the AO on 29th Oct., 1997 for the block period 1st April, 1986 to 18th Oct., 1996 determining the total undisclosed income of the respondent as Rs. 7,22,537. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the respondent filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore (for short the Tribunal'). By order dt. 11th Dec, 2000, the Tribunal held that if the total income for those years in which returns were not filed be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2006ACJ1211
S.S. Jha, J.1. This appeal is filed by the claimants against the award passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mauganj, District Rewa. Claims Tribunal has dismissed the application of the applicants on the ground that offending vehicle was not insured with the insurance company and in the absence of eyewitness negligence on part of driver of the truck in not proved.2. The facts of the case are that on 17.8.1995, deceased Kamta was travelling in a truck bearing No. MBA 4447, driven by Ruab Ali, respondent No. 2 and owned by Awadh Narayan Jaiswal, respondent No. 1. The truck dashed against a tree which resulted in death of Kamta. The claimant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased Kamta. Insurance company has taken the plea that driver was not having valid licence. The insurance company has also denied their liability to pay compensation. However, insurance company has reserved its right about the insurance of vehicle, if policy of the said veh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : II(2006)ACC749; 2007ACJ1228
Arun Mishra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by claimants against the award dated 29.1.1997 passed in Claim Case No. 55 of 1994 by Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior.2. The claim petition was preferred by the claimants on account of death of Anil Kumar, who died in vehicular accident on 9.10.1991. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,61,600 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. The vehicle was driven by Satishchand at the time of incident. It was owned by Sadhna and was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The driver was proceeded ex parte and did not appear before the learned Claims Tribunal in spite of service.3. Written statement was filed by the insurer contending that licence held by the driver was fake. It was not issued by the R.T.O., Alwar (Rajasthan). As there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, hence insurer is not liable to pay com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(3)MPLJ404
ORDERS.L. Jain, J.1. Invoking appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Order 43 Rule 1 (k) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal calling in question the correctness, legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 12-10-1998 passed by the First Addl. District Judge, Sagar in C.S. No. 36-A/96, whereby the application of the appellant under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code has been dismissed.2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal are that; plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants/respondents for declaration of his title on the ground of adverse possession. On 26-9-91, Shri Roop Singh Yadav, Advocate filed his power on behalf of defendant Siyarani (now dead). The case proceeded exparte against Siyarani. No written statement was filed by her. On 31-11-98 plaintiff Raghuwar Prasad was examined during trial. During his cross-examination, he expressed his ignorance about the whereabouts of Siyarani and also a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2007)208CTR(MP)296; [2007]288ITR168(MP)
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short 'the Act'), filed by the Commissioner of the Income-tax, Bhopal, against the order dated December 11, 2000, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore.2. The facts briefly are that search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act were carried out during October 18,1996, to October 30,1996, in the premises of Sarva Shri Purshottam Khatri, C.L. Khatri, Asandas Khatri and their group. In the case of the respondent, a warrant of authorisation under Section 132 of the Act and Rule 112(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (for short 'the Rules'), authorising the search of locker No. 133 in Allahabad Bank, Royal Market, Bhopal, belonging to the respondent and C.L. Khatri was also issued on October 18, 1996, and pursuant thereto search was carried out in the said locker. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (for short 'the ACIT')(Investigation), Circle 1, Bhopa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2007]290ITR260(MP); 2006(3)MPLJ131
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') filed by the CIT against the order dt. 7th June, 2000 of the Tribunal.2. The facts briefly are that the respondent left India in 1968 and was employed in Muscat and Dubai till the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1992-93 and thereafter returned to India. A search was carried out under Section 132 of the Act in the premises of the respondent at Bhopal for a period of 13 days from 18th Oct., 1996 to 30th Oct., 1996. Thereafter, an assessment was made under Section 158BC read with Section 143(3) of the Act by the AO on 29th Oct., 1997 determining the total undisclosed income for the block period 1st April, 1986 to 18th Oct., 1996 at Rs. 2,10,48,043. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore (for short, the Tribunal) and by order dt. 7th June, 2000, the Tribunal deleted some of the additions made by the AO to the undisclos...
Tag this Judgment!