Madhya Pradesh Court April 2006 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.
Kothari and Company Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(MP)298
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.This is an appeal filed by the assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter for brevity called 'the Act'), against an order dated 9-4-2001, passed by Tribunal, Indore in ITA No. 111/Ind/1996. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law :'Whether penalty under section 271D which was brought on the statute book with effect from 1-4-1989 could have been imposed on the assessee in respect of transactions taken place prior to 1-4-1989 ?'2. Facts of this appeal lie in a narrow compass. However, they need to be taken note of in brief coupled with the legal changes brought about in relevant sections applicable to the facts of this case.3. The appellant is an assessee under the Income Tax Act and is being assessed as such. The dispute in this case relates to assessment year 1989-90 which corresponds to previous year ending on 31-3-1989 i.e., 1-4-1988 to 31-3-1989.4. It is not in dispute that assessee during the p...
Ravi Kant Bansal, Engineers and Contractors Vs. M.P. Audyogik Kendra V ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)MPLJ299
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is a reference made to the Full Bench by the Division Bench on a question of law arising out of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short 'the Adhiniyam') as amended by the Amending Act No. 36 of 1995.2. The factual background in which the reference has been made to us by the Division Bench is as follows:The petitioner and the respondent entered into a Works Contract on 26-3-1991 under which the petitioner was to undertake the construction of WBM Roads in Malanpur Industrial Area. After completion of the work, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal (for short 'the Tribunal') on 29-7-1995 making claims under different heads against the respondent totalling Rs. 1,12,1251- with pendente-lite interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The respondent contested the claim by filing a reply and also submitted a counter claim before the Tribunal on 16-1-1991 for an amount of Rs. 2.51.81...
Cit Vs. Kewal Krishan Baweja
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: [2009]316ITR355(MP)
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Revenue) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order dated 18-8-2003 passed by ITAT in ITA No. IT(SS)A No. 25 /IND /2002. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial questions of law:1. Whether ITAT was justified in quashing the assessment order, dated 25-11-1997 framed under Section 158BC ?2. Whether there were valid grounds available to the Tribunal to quash the assessment order dated 25-11-1997 under Section 158BC and if so whether order of Tribunal can be sustained on those grounds ?2. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned Sr. Counsel with Ku. Veena Mandlik for the appellant/Revenue and Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri D.S. Kale, for respondent/assessee.3. Without unnecessary complicating the factual narration of facts involved in the case we may take note of one undisputed fact that when the order of Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Ac...
Deepak Kumar Vs. Labh Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC420
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 1st Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 4/2003.2. On 13th April, 2003 while the appellant was driving a Truck Chassis, the respondent No. 2 Harbans Singh, driving a Truck bearing Registration No. HR 37-6502 at an alarming speed, collided with the said Chassis resulting in severe injuries to the appellant. The appellant sustained injuries in both his legs, in patella, on calves as also a fracture in his left leg. He was badly bruised around his waist and in his hands. He had to be subjected to extensive treatment and according to the appellant, he had to pay about 1,50,000 on medical expenses but still he sustained permanent disablement. The accident was reported at P.S. Vijay Nagar, District Ajmer, where a case was registered. It was stated that the said vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3 Insurance ...
Smt. Shyam Bai W/O Shri Ram Pratap Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Through ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)MPLJ554
K.K. Lahoti, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 27.4.2005 (P/1) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer- cum- Prescribed Authority, Jaisingh Nagar, Dist. Shahdol (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Election Tribunal) by which the authority has directed for recounting of the votes for the election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat- Amjhor, Tehsil Jaisingh Nagar, Dist. Shahdol.2. The petitioner has assailed this order on following grounds:(i) That the application for recounting was not made before declaration of the result by respondent No. 4 Smt. Munni Bai but the application was filed at about 9.20 p.m. on the date of counting while the counting was concluded at 7.30 p.m.(ii) That, specific grounds are to be stated in the election petition on which the recounting may be directed. The rejection of the ballot papers was as per Rule 76 of M.P. Panchayat Election Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to in short as' the Rules') and until and unless a specific ground is made ou...
Nepa Limited and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: (2007)8VST243(MP)
ORDERR.S. Jha, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the tenability of the order dated November 13, 1998 passed under Section 39(2) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Indore, by which the proceedings initiated under Section 19A of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act which had been closed by order dated September 30, 1996 have been revised and tax at 12 per cent on the sale of coal ash has been imposed.2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, a Central Government undertaking, was assessed to tax vide order dated February 10,1993. In this order no tax on the sale of coal ash was levied. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this order was also dismissed vide order dated July 13, 1993. On July 14, 1994, proceedings for reassessment were initiated under Section 19A of the Act, in view of the order of the Board of Revenue passed in the case reported in Burn Standard Co. Ltd., Jabalpur v. Comm...
Ramchandra and anr. Vs. Shivnarayan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1661
S.K. Seth, J.1. This order shall also govern disposal of M.A. No. 1202 of 2000, Sarita v. Shivnarayan, as the same accident is the genesis of these two appeals. For the sake of convenience relevant facts in brief may be noticed from the above appeal.2. On 18.4.1999, Suresh and Sherulal accompanied by one Shivnarayan went to the agriculture field of Bhanwar Singh, respondent No. 2, on a tractor. Shivnarayan, driver employed by respondent No. 2, was on driving seat. He brought the tractor to a halt near border of the field and before alighting he did not switch off the engine. He also did not took care to place any stopper to prevent accidental movement of tractor. Tractor on account of slope started rolling in reverse direction and fell into a nearby ditch. As a result Sheru and Suresh, who were sitting in the tractor, were crushed to death. Their legal representatives lodged two separate claims before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaora. Claim petitions were contested...
Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: [2007]292ITR533(MP)
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. By this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), the appellant-assessee assails the order dated 30-5-2002, of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, in Income-tax Appeal No. 216/Ind/2000, pertaining to the assessment year 1995-96. The appeal has been admitted on the following questions of law :1. Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that after full and final settlement of the tax arrears under Section 90 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 in respect of all the matters, the Commissioner of Income-tax had jurisdiction to revise the said assessment order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had jurisdiction to revise the initial assessment order when it was rectified under Section 154 ...
Hotel Neelkamal, Through Its Prop. Shri Kamal Singh Verma, S/O Shri Am ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: (2007)5VST260(MP)
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. An important question has been raised by the petitioner in respect of applicability of provisions of M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (for short 'M.P.C.T. Act') between 1.4.1995 and 24.12.2001 for enforcing the provisions of M.P. Hotel Tatha Vas Grihon Me Vilas Vastuon Par Kar Adhiniyam 1988 (for short 'Luxury Tax Act').2. The petitioner has sought following reliefs in this petition:It is therefore most humbly & respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be kindly pleased:To quash the Luxury tax asstt. order dated 21.6,2002 Annexure P-5.To hold that the Commercial Tax Act, 1994 was not applicable in Luxury Tax Act, 1988 during the impugned period i.e. 1-11-1995 to 26-3-1999.To hold that Asstt. Commercial Tax Officer committed mistake in not issuing demand notice in form VI as prescribed under the Luxury Tax Act.To quash the notice for recovery from third parties issued in form 45 of the Commercial Tax Act Annexure P-7.To hold that the petitioner was not entitled to...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Siddharth Tubes Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: [2008]296ITR221(MP)
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, dated May 30, 2002, in appeal I.T.A. No. 216/Ind of 2000 for the assessment year 1995-96. The appeal has been admitted by this Court on the following question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the refund of excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,63,38,856 is includible in the profits computed for the purpose of deduction under Sections 80HH and 80I of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. The assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacture of steel pipes and steel tubes and cold rolled formed sections. It filed return of the income for the assessment year 1995-96 on November 30, 995, showing income of Rs. 9,24,490. After examining the books of account and other relevant documents, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) on March 27,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »