Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963MP316; 1963MPLJ614
Dixit, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from a decision of the Election Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, declaring the election of the appellant Satya Prakash to the House of the People from Bilaspur parliamentary Constituency void on the ground that the respondent Bashir Ahmed's nomination had been improperly and illegally rejected.2. The material facts are not in dispute. The appellant Satya Prakash, the respondent Bashir Ahmed ana three other persons were candidates for election to the House of the People from the Bilaspur Parliamentary Constituency. On 22nd January 1962, the date fixed for the scrutiny of nomination papers, one Ramashankar Tiwari, who had proposed the appellant, raised the objection that the respondent Bashir Ahmed's nomination was not valid as he was a shareholder in 'The Combined Transport Services (Pvt.) Ltd., Bilaspur,' (hereinafter referred to as the Company), which had entere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1983]144ITR620(MP)
Vijayvargiya, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax. Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court:RA Nos. 95 & 96: A.Ys. 1972-73 & 1973-74 '1. Whether, under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the ITO was justified in initiating proceedings under Section 147 ? 2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order under Section 143(1)/147 clubbing the share incomes of the two minor children, while the same was not shown ? 3. Whether, under the facts of the case as well as the provision of law, without cancelling the already completed assessment of the minors, in respect of the share incomes from a firm, wherein their father was also a partner, the share incomes of the minors could be again assessed in the hands of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(0)MPLJ527
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. Defendants in the suit for specific performance are the appellants herein. Plaintiff is respondent herein. Respondent herein on the one hand and the first appellant (first defendant) on the other hand entered into an agreement dated 14-12-1982, wherein the first defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/-, 0.20 acres of land together with a house situated therein, in which the plaintiff's father was then a tenant. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- was paid on that day. On 9-1-1983, further agreement was entered into on payment of Rs. 18,000/-. After waiting in vain for the first defendant to execute the sale-deed, plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance. The first defendant contended that the property was ancestral property and was allotted along with other items of the property to his share, that is, to the share of his Branch family and that he was only the Karta of the joint family. He also contended that the plaintiff should have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1971]80ITR656(MP)
Bishambhar Dayal, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, for the purpose of calculating the tax with reference to which the penalty was leviable in the case of a registered firm under Section 271(1) read with Section 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the tax payable by such firm should be determined after deducing the advance tax paid by the partners under Section 18A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of their shares of profits from the firm from the gross tax payable by the firm on the basis that it was an unregistered firm ?'2. The assessee-respondent is a firm having four partners. The relevant year is 1958-59, the return for which was filed by the firm on 8th July, 1959, i.e., it was filed 11 months after the due date. In the assessment year the firm was registered and had made a depos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(2)MPHT367
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ is, whether respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were justified in holding that petitioner was not eligible for submitting tender pursuant to Notice Inviting Tender (for short 'NIT') invited by them thereby depriving the petitioner to participate in tender process on merits alongwith other eligible tenderers Facts necessary for the disposal of the writ need mention in brief.2. Narmada Valley Development Authority - the respondent No. 3 herein is an authority created by State of M.P. by virtue of a Notification, dated 16-7-1985 (Annexure P-3) issued by the State. Its main object is to plan, construct and maintain major and multipurpose projects in the Narmada Valley.3. On 14-2-2002, the respondent No. 3 invited tenders by issuing NIT (Annexure P-3) for providing and laying M.S. Pipe Lines for underground rising mains from DC-1 to DC-2 and DC-3 to DC-4 of Kathora Lift Irrigation Scheme on left bank of river Narmada ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1980]121ITR507(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. This order shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 219, 220, 221, 222, 237, 238 and 239, all of 1976. These are all applications made by the assessee under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961,2. For the assessment years 1961-62 to 1968-69, the assessee was assessed as an individual. The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee was previously a partner of the firm, M/s. Chimanlal Umaji & Sons. This firm consisted of the assessee and his two major sons. His minor son, Gulabchand, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. According to the case of the assessee, this firm was dissolved in the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 1961-62 and a new firm, by name M/s. Gulabchand Chimanlal was constituted. There were three partners in this firm, namely, Hemchand Tarachand, Pratapchand Laxmichand and Smt. Laxmiben. Laxmiben is the wife of the assessee, Chimanlal. Minor Gulabchand was also admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1972MPLJ232
Bhave, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, has referred the following question for our decision :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty could be levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1962-63 ?'2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Smt. Rani Duleiya is a partner of the firm, Messrs. Agarwal & Co., which was registered under the Income-tax Act. Her three minor sons are also admitted to the benefits of the partnership. For the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee and her sons were separately assessed in respect of their shares from the firm. In the return filed by her, she had not included in her total income the shares of profit of her minor sons from the firm. She had, however, pointed out in Part III(c) of the return that the particulars were 'as per firm's return'. Part III(c) of the form of return requires that the assessee should show the relationship with other partners which she had tailed to mention. After the as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1988)67CTR(MP)98; [1988]173ITR547(MP)
N.D. Ojha, C.J.1. The Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, has referred the following question to this court for its opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (' the Act '):' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the capital gains arising to the assessees was liable to be assessed as short-term capital gains '2. For the purpose of answering the aforesaid question, it may be pointed out that the assessess are Ramji Narayan Patel and Ratansi Narayan Patel. The relevant assessment year is 1976-77. The facts in a nutshell which are necessary to be taken notice of for answering the aforesaid question and are clear from a perusal of the appellate order passed by the Tribunal, its order dated April 7, 1982, passed on an application for correction of certain mistake in paragraph 2 of the aforesaid order and the statement of the case drawn up by the Tribunal are that, to start with, there was a partnership in the name of Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1997]224ITR268(MP)
1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; at the instance of the Revenue and the following questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal for answer of this court :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the original deed dated November 14, 1955, together with the endorsement dated September 10, 1961, will constitute an instrument of partnership for purpose of registration ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that there was no change in the constitution of the firm and the assessee was entitled to continuation of registration of the firm for the assessment year 1962-63 ?' 2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are thus : Under a deed of partnership dated November 14, 1955, the assessee-firm was constituted with the following three partners, namely :Shareinprofitin loss1.Rajaram Adatia0-2-33/7th0...
Tag this Judgment!