Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2004)189CTR(MP)26; [2004]268ITR244(MP); 2004(1)MPHT438; 2004(1)MPLJ589
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.:1. The following two questions have been referred by the Division Bench for adjudication before the Larger Bench :--'(1) In view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. (supra), whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that Assessee was entitled to interest under Sections 214 and 244(1-A) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the A.Ys. 1972-73 to 1976-77 ?(2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessce was entitled to the benefit of interest under Section 244(1-A) on refunds in respect of any amount of tax including self assessment tax paid or given credit in assessment completed after 31-3-1975?'2. The facts which are essential to be stated in both the cases are as under:--(A) Income Tax Reference No. 35/1994 : (Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur v. Udhoji Shri Krishandas, Satna) In this reference assessment years involved are 1972-73 to 1976-77. M/s Udhoji Shri Krishna Das Agarwal is a reg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2004]136TAXMAN465(MP)
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.The following two questions have been referred by the Division Bench for adjudication before the Larger Bench :'1. In view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. (supra), whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that assessee was entitled to interest under sections 214 and 244(1A) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the assessment years 1972-73 to 1976-77 ?2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of interest under section 244(1A) on refunds in respect of any amount of tax including self-assessment tax paid or given credit in assessment completed after 31-3-1975 ?'2. The facts which are essential to be stated in both the cases are as under :(A) CIT v. Udhoji Shri Krishandas (IT Reference No. 35 of 1994)In this reference assessment years involved are 1972-73 to 1976-77. M/s. Udhoji Shri Krishan Das Agarwal is registered partnership firm in which following were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1979]117ITR662(MP)
Oza, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referring to us the question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that as soon as the notice under Section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is served upon the assessee, the period of default under Section 139(1) comes to an end '2. The assessment year is 1963-64 for which the previous accounting year was 1962-63. Under Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, return was to be filed by the assessee voluntarily on or before 30th June, 1963. On June 28, 1963, it appears that the assessee submitted an application for extension of time up to the 30th September, 1963. On 10th February, 1964, a notice under Section 139(2) was served on the assessee calling upon him to file a return within 30 days. Return was filed by the assessee ultimately on March 21, 1966. The ITO, therefore, while proceeding with the assessment, gave a notice under Section 271(1)(a)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1989]176ITR273(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of Section 64(1)(vi) were not attracted to the case of the assessee and the income earned by Mrs. Pragnya Devi, the daughter-in-law of the assessee, from the share in the firm, Pragnya Oil Industries, could not be included in the hands of the assessee ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows :The assessee was a partner in the firms, Nirmalkumar & Co. and Pragnya Oil Industries. The assessee gifted a sum of Rs. 25,100 to his son's wife, Smt. Pragnya Devi, who contributed that amount to the capital of the firm, Pragnya Oil Industries, and became a partner of that firm. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1997]228ITR200(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 question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for answer of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of Section 161(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable and the assessee could not be assessed as an association of persons ?'2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are thus : The assessee-trust was created by the settlor, one Shri Sohanlal, by settling a sum of Rs. 5,100 for the benefit of minors, Rajesh, Satish, Ravi Kumar and Ku. Rinku. The assessee claimed that it is not liable for tax being a specific trust with the beneficiaries having specified shares. The Assessing Officer accordingly assessed the trust as an association of persons. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed to assess the income of the trust in the hands of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2004)189CTR(MP)187; [2004]270ITR62(MP)
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, C.J.1. This is a reference filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the IT Act.2. The facts very briefly are that the assessee/non-applicant filed a return for the year 1987-88 on a total income of Rs. 1,82,530 claiming the status of firm. The AO in the assessment proceedings under Section 185(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 treated the firm to be unregistered firm on the ground that the profits were not distributed in accordance with the terms of the partnership deed. It was also noticed by the AO that there was some inter-knitting dispute between the partners. The assessment order is before us at Annex. P/1.3. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the appellate authority set aside the order of the ITO and held that the firm is a registered firm. The order of the appellate authority is before us at Annex. P/2.4. The Revenue felt aggrieved and filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by order dt. 24th July, 1996 (Annex. P/3). It is in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1986)57CTR(MP)285; [1987]166ITR449(MP)
G.G. Sohani, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the whole of the income from the aforesaid private trust was assessable in the hands of the assessee as the income of the assessee ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:3. The assessee is assessed in the status of an individual and the assessment year in question is 1971-72, the accounting year for which ended on Diwali, 1970. The assessee and his father had constituted a Hindu undivided family. A partition was effected between the assessee and his father on June 19, 1961, and a memorandum of partition was executed on July 9, 1961. As a result of that partition, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 50,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1995)DMC565
M.V. Tamaskar, J.1. This Misc. Appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, has been filed against the order dated 21.3.1990 passed by the 1st Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Sagar, in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1986.2. One Heeralal had three sons. During his life time he had partitioned his property between three sons and himself. These three sons are Kanhaiyalal, Ratan Chand and Babulal. Kamal Rani is the widow of Late Babulal and daughter-in-law of Heeralal. Vide Ex. P/l dated 13.7.1971 Heeralal executed a Will in favour of Smt. Kamal Rani of the property shown in Schedule 'A'.3. The Will was scribed by Tulsiram Vyas, who is dead and attested by Mahesh. No attempt was made to obtain, a probate in respect of the properties until the year 1986. Certain proceedings for mutation in the Revenue Court and for partition in the Civil Court were filed after the death of Heeralal in the year 1973. Heralal died on 15.9.1973.4. An application for grant of probate u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2004ACJ526
Bhawani Singh, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, in Claim Case No. 80 of 1993, dated 9.2.1996.2. Gopal Mahadu Patil (deceased) was caretaker with Nepa Mill Rest House, Bhopal. On 25.2.1991, he was hit by speeding Matador MOD 6750, driven rashly and negligently by Tejendra Pal Singh, owned by the respondent. He was shifted to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, where he died on 26.2.1991. The claimants are his widow Bana Bai and the three children, namely, (i) Chandrakala Patil, (ii) Vishnu Patil and (iii) Bhupendra Patil. They submit that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,200 per month whereon the family was dependent. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 has been claimed.3. The respondent No. 1 Tejendra Pal Singh, driver, has been proceeded ex parte, though he died during the pendency of the case. Similarly, Union of India has been proceeded ex parte. The Commissioner of Income Tax has contested the case. It is denied that the accid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1953CriLJ1764
Dixit, J.1. The appellant Lalaram and his brother Karansingh were tried by the Sessions Judge of Morena for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code for the murder of one Jalim. At the end of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Karansingh giving him the benefit of doubt. But agreeing with the opinion of the assessors, he found the appellant Lalaram guilty under Section 302, Penal Code and sentenced him to transportation for life. Lalaram has now appealed to this Court against the conviction and the sentence,2. The prosecution case was that the appellant Lalaram was a servant of Sukhpal Singh, the zamindar of Kodaira, Madhopur and other villages and that in that capacity Lalaram used to take forced labour from the villagers and also recover from them illegal exactions. As a result of these acts of Lalaram, the villagers were displeased with him and persuaded him to give up the service of the zamindar. The prosecution alleged that the conduct of Sukhpal S...
Tag this Judgment!