Madhya Pradesh Court February 2006 Judgments
income Tax Officer Vs. Ramkishore Rewaram Tada
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(MP)404; [2006]287ITR239(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (CIT) under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 25th Nov., 2002 passed by Tribunal in IT Appeal No. 529/Ind/1999. The appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law :Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal was right in holding that penalty proceedings under Section 271D are independent of assessment proceedings 2. In our opinion yet one real question that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty imposed by AO under Section 271D are barred by limitation as provided in Section 275(1)(c) ibid. We, therefore formulate one following question of law which, in our opinion, arise for consideration :Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that impugned penalty imposed under Section 271D is barred by limitation as provided in Section 275(1)(c) ibid 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They ne...
Tag this Judgment!Toran Singh and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT357; 2006(2)MPLJ386
A.K. Gohil, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of Criminal Appeals No. 16/95 and 98/95.2. Being aggrieved the appellants have filed this appeal and have assailed the judgment of conviction dated 23-12-1994 under Sections 302/34, IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha, in Sessions Trial No. 120/82.3. Prosecution story in brief is as under:-that, on 4-7-82 complainant Kaluram, resident of Village Shekhpur District Vidisha was at his home. Harnam came there crying that Toran Singh, Kok Singh, Malkhan Singh and Ummed Singh are beating Gaurishankar near Pilia Nala by farsas. Hearing this Kaluram, Sultan Singh, Mulayam, Prahlad Singh, Harnam, Munshilal, Parasram and Kamal Singh reached at the place of occurrence. Gaurishankar was lying in the Nala drenched with blood. Kaluram asked Gaurishankar, 'what had happened'. Gaurishankar in presence of all other persons stated that Kok Singh, Toran Singh, Malkhan and Ummed Singh have beat...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. T.A. Qureshi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(MP)406; [2007]292ITR301(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (CIT) under Section 260A of the Act against an order dt. 9th April, 1999 passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 562/Ind/1994. 2. The appeal was admitted for final hearing on 23rd March, 2000 by a Bench consisting of Hon'ble R.D, Vyas and Hon'ble Shambhoo Singh, JJ., without formulating the substantial question of law as required under Section 260A of the Act. Since the appeal is already admitted for final hearing and in our view rightly, we consider it proper and with the consent of parties comply the rigour of Section 260A ibid and formulate the substantial question of law which in our view does arise out of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal: (1) Whether Tribunal was justified in setting aside of the penalty imposed by AO under Section 271(1)(c) ibid (2) Whether in view of order passed by this Court in IT Appeal No. 33 of 1999, dt. 29th Nov., 2004 upholding the addition in assessment proceedings, a case for remand is made out...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanya Kumar JaIn Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(MP)599; [2006]153TAXMAN540(MP)
ORDERBy The CourtThis is an appeal filed by assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order, dated 3-8-2001, passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 44/Ind/1996. It was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law'1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there could be recourse to the provisions of section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act for reassessing the income of the assessee by including Rs. 2,74,627 ?2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, reopening of the assessment was barred by time under the proviso to section 147 of the Act ?'2. Heard Shri K.N. Puntambekar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri A.P. Patankar, learned counsel for the respondent.3. In short and in substance, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether issuance of notice under section 147/148 of the Act, seeking to reopen the assessment for making reassessment for the assessment year in question (1982-83) is legally just...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mandsour Ferro Alloys Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: [2008]296ITR176(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by Revenue (GIT) under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order dt. 20th July, 2000, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in ITA No. 264/Ind/1998. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law:1. Whether Tribunal was justified in setting aside of an order passed by the GIT under Section 263 of the IT Act without giving any finding much less categorical finding as to how and on what basis the case of the assessee falls in the excepted categories as defined under Section 40A(3) r/w Clause (j) of Rule 6DD of the IT Rules, 1962?2. In an order of reversal, was it not obligatory upon the Tribunal to have given a categorical finding of fact that assessee has satisfied the requirement of the concerned section, i.e., Section 40A(3) r/w Clause (j) of Rule 6DD of the IT Rules, 1962, by giving cogent explanation thereby disentitling the CIT from invoking the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chemifine
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: [2009]296ITR498(MP)
1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other connected appeal being I.T.A. No. 35/2000 as both the appeals involve a common question of law.2. This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (the Revenue) under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated May 16, 2000, passed in I.T.A. Nos. 215 and 216/IND/98. The appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the deduction as per the proviso to Section 80HHC has to be calculated independently without setting off the same against the loss worked out as per Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 80HHC relying on their own earlier order dated February 26, 1999, in I.T.A. Nos. 510 and 1026/IND/97 in the case of Alphine Solvex Ltd. v. Deputy CIT even though the same was not accepted by the Departm...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanya Kumar JaIn Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: [2008]298ITR396(MP)
ORDER1. This is an appeal filed by assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order, dt. 3rd Aug., 2001, passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 44/Ind/1996. It was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law :1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there could be recourse to the provisions of Section 147/148 of the IT Act for reassessing the income of the assessee by including Rs. 2,74,627 ?2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, reopening of the assessment was barred by time under the proviso to Section 147 of the Act ?2. Heard Shri K.N. Puntambekar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri A.P. Patankar, learned Counsel for the respondent.3. In short and in substance, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is; whether issuance of notice under Section 147/148 of the Act, seeking to reopen the assessment for making reassessment for the assessment year in question (1982-83), is legally justified or not All th...
Tag this Judgment!Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Narendra ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2527
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the M.P.S.R.T.C. (non-applicant) under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against an award dated 29.1.2003 passed by the learned Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barwaha, District West Nimar in Claim Case No. 104 of 2001. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 26,59,000 together with 12 per cent interest on the said sum for the injuries sustained by him (respondent). According to non-applicant, the claim should have been dismissed and in any event the compensation awarded is on higher side and hence, it is liable to be reduced.2. So, two questions arise in this appeal filed by the M.P.S.R.T.C, i.e., owner of offending vehicle. First, whether Tribunal was justified in allowing claim petition? And second, whether Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation amounting to Rs. 26,59,000 to the claimant for the injuries suffered by the claimant?3. Heard Mr. S.V. Dandwate, learned Counsel for the ap...
Tag this Judgment!M.P.S.R.T.C. and anr. Vs. Narendra and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC580
ORDER1. This is an appeal filed by the M.P.S.R.T.C. (non-applicant) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 29.1.2003, passed by learned Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barwaha, District West Nimar in Claim Case No. 104 of 2001. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 26,59,000 together with 12% interest on the said sum for the injuries sustained by him (respondent). According to non-applicant, the claim should have been dismissed and in any event the compensation awarded is on higher side and hence, it is liable to be reduced.2. So, two questions arise in this appeal filed by the M.P.S.R.T.C. i.e., owner of offending vehicle, First, whether Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim petition? And second, whether Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation amounting to Rs. 26,59,000 to the claimant for the injuries suffered by the claimant?3. Heard Mr. S.V. Dandwate, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. N.K. D...
Tag this Judgment!Ran Singh Sikarwar Vs. the State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPHT18
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an unfortunate case in which the petitioner's son suffered burn injuries while in police custody and thereafter died in the hospital. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the acceptance of the final report by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena, for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and for compensation of Rs. Ten Lakhs from the State Government for the death of his son.2. The facts briefly are that on 22-8-1996 the petitioner's son Devendra Singh while moving at the Railway Station, Morena, was taken into custody by the Police for inquiry and brought to the City Kotwali, Morena, where he suffered burn injuries. He was then moved to the Gwalior Jaya Arogya Medical College Hospital, where he died on 24-8-1996. The District Magistrate/Collector, Morena, ordered a magisterial inquiry and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Morena, made the inquiry and submitted a report, which was accepted by the State Government. Crime No. 547/96 under ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »