Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1982]136ITR762(MP)
Shukla, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has stated the case and referred the same to us for opinion on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that it was a case of change in the constitution of the firm as contemplated by Section 187(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was not a case of succession of one firm by another as provided for in Section 188 of the Act and that one assessment of the income of the assessee for the whole period was liable to be made ?'2. Undisputed facts of the case are as follows : Firm, M/s. Ganesh Dall Mill, Indore, was originally constituted by four persons : (1) Shri Tejram, (2) Shri Omprakash, (3) Shri Bhukhraj, and (4) Shri Chandmal, having equal shares. There was no clause in the partnership deed to the effect that on the death or retirement of any of the partners, the firm will continue. On 11...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1958MP373
V.R. Newaskar, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by plaintiff Abdul Sattar against his brother Abdul Rehman and the latter's son Ismail for specific performance ofagreement dated 23-11-1931 entered into between Abdul Sattar and Abdul Rehman the latter acting as' she guardian of his minor son Ismail. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and plaintiff now appeals, 2. Plaintiff came to Court with the allegationsthat he owned a house in Moholla Rangrcjoki Sadak in the town of Ratlam. Some time in 1931, the plaintiff got into financial difficulties. He became indebted to the people in the Bazar and was placed in a situation which compelled him to sell his house. With a view to save the house for the family the plaintiff decided to effect a sale of the house in the name of his minor nephew Ismail at the suggestion of hisbrother Abdul Rchman who induced him to believe in case the house were sold in the name of Is-mail for a consideration of Rs. 2.051/- by executing a duly re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ377
P.N.S. Chouhan, J.1. Residents of village Mondwara, Police Station Jatara, District Tikamgarh were sharply divided into two camps, one led by absconding accused Ranmat Singh and the other headed by Neksai (PW 20). The bone of contention which led to these quadruple murders was rival claims for possession over the pasture land (Gochar) of the village. In the year 1984 Pattas were granted in favour of Moti, Kundan, Ranmat Singh, Ramsingh, Phulsingh, Siyaram, Kalloo Sore, Bhagwandas, Ramkali wife of Kishan etc. of appellants' camp. The other side challenged these allotments and the matter was sub judice on the date of incident. These facts are not in dispute. Members of Neksai's camp claimed that they were in actual possession of the said land notwithstanding the grant of Pattas to others and that is why they had challenged the said grants. On 25-6-1990, at day break, i.e. 6.30 a.m., appellants and four absconding accused, namely, Ranmat Singh, Motilal, Kundan Singh and Chatur Khangar wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1981]128ITR437(MP); 1978MPLJ731
G.P. Singh, Actg. C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, referring for our answer the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal was right in holding that no partnership, that is valid in law, came into existence and registration was rightly refused ?'2. There was a joint Hindu family consisting of Sardar Ude Singh and his two sons, Sardar Sant Singh and Sardar Manmohan Singh. The family carried on business in the name of Sardar Ude Singh and Sons. A partition took place in the family on 1st July, 1959. In this partition, the business carried on in the name and style of Sardar Ude Singh and Sons at Junnardeo came to the share of Sant Singh. The total assets of the business were determined at Rs. 79,432. After excluding ornaments of Rs. 1,700 and life insurance premium of Rs. 1,336, the balance figure of assets came to Rs. 76,396 out of which a sum of Rs. 76,185 Was introduced as capital in the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1980]123ITR831(MP)
Sohani, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.P. Nos. 204, 205 and 463, all of 1976.2. All these petitions under art. 226 of the Constitution are directed against the notices issued to the petitioner under Section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, hereinafter called the Surtax Act. Though in the petitions the petitioner claimed a number of reliefs, the only relief pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing was that the notices issued under Section 13 of the Surtax Act be quashed and that a writ of prohibition be issued restraining the respondents from proceeding further in pursuance of those notices.3. Before we deal with the particular facts of each petition separately, it would be useful to refer to certain common facts and questions of law arising in all these petitions. The petitioner is a public limited company carrying on business as manufacturers of rayon grade pulp, staple fibre, rayon plant and machinery and other chemical ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1984]147ITR110(MP)
Sohani, 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, 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 right in law in holding that the assessment order dated August 8, 1977, granting continuation of registration for the A.Y. 1977-78 was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue attracting the provisions of Section 263 of the Act ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, as set out in the statement of the case, briefly are as follows:3. The assessee is a partnership firm. By a deed of partnership dated 2nd January, 1972, the assessee-firm was constituted consisting of five partners and two minors, Shri Purandas and Shri Premchand, who were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The assessee-firm was granted registration under Section 185 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1987]168ITR605(MP)
N.D. Ojha, C.J.1. The question as to whether a firm is entitled to continuation of registration even in a case where it does not stand dissolved or continuation of registration is possible only if the firm stands dissolved was referred by a Division Bench of this court to a Full Bench by its order dated August 14, 1987, It is thus that the aforesaid question has come up for consideration before us.2. The Division Bench, in referring the aforesaid question to a Full Bench, was of the view that there seemed to be an apparent conflict on the aforesaid question in the decisions of the two Division Benches of this court, one in the case of CIT v. Gopi Talkies, Raigarh : [1987]163ITR568(MP) and the other in the case of Ganesh Rice Mills v. CIT : [1981]132ITR257(MP) .3. In the case of Gopi Talkies, Raigarh : [1987]163ITR568(MP) , the assessee claimed the status as a registered firm in the return filed on June 30, 1975, for the assessment year 1975-76, for which the accounting period ended on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP35
Shrivastava, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff Mst. Dewala whose suit for possession against the defendants-respondents has failed in the Courts below.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the properties in suit (i.e. lands, a house and some moveables worth Rs. 600/- as detailed in the plaint) belonged to one Dasoda, who died on 10-7-1949, leaving behind three daughters --Mst. Dewala (appellant), Rupsir (respondent No. 1) and Mst. Tejia, mother of Jhitu (respondent No. 21. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to one-half share in the suit properties and sued for joint possession to the extent of her share.3. The respondent No. 2. Jhitu, did not. appear to contest the suit. The respondent No. 1, Mst. Rupsir, contested the claim on the ground that she was more indigent and unprovided for than the plaintiff and was, therefore, better entitled to inheritance to the properties of Mst. Dasoda than the plaintiff. She had also raised other pleas to resist the claim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP40
Shriastava, J. 1. This first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the decree of the Additional District Judge, Balaghat, dismissing the suit. 2. On 31-7-1950, the Honorary Secretary of the defendant Co-operative Society made a reference to the Registrar that the plaintiff as a Treasurer of the Society had not accounted for the moneys received by him as such. The plaintiff had admittedly a sum of Rs. 3415-10-8 with him on behalf of the Society, but the dispute arose regarding an item of Rs. 7397-8-0 received by him on the encashment of a hundi which was appropriated by him towards, dues which he had to recover as commission agent. The Registrar gave an award on 30-6-1951 holding that the plaintiff (appellant) was liable to pay Rs. 10,462-15-6 to the defendant. The plaintiff challenged the validity of the award. 3. The plaintiff admitted that his family firm Raotmal Mishrimal acted as a Treasurer from 20-2-1948 till 31-7-1950, but he himself was neither the Treasurer nor a memb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972MP193; 1973MPLJ11
1. This is an appeal by the defendant (as Pauper) against the judgment and decree of the Second Additional District Judge. Gwalior whereby the adoption deed dated 30-6-1960 in his favour was declared null and void and the possession of the houses and lands as per paragraph 7 of the plaint was ordered to be delivered to the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff Kamta Prasad is the son of Ramchandra (P.W. 1) while the defendant Gopal Krishna is the son of Harimohan (D. W. 2). Both of them were closely related to the deceased Gyasiram who adopted the plaintiff on 8-9-1953 and executed a registered document (Ex. P. 1) in his favour. The deceased also adopted the defendant on 30-6-1960 and executed a registered document (Ex. P.4-A) in his favour. Gyasiram died on 30-7-1960.3. The plaintiff's case is this : Gyasiram adopted him by performing due ceremony. After adoption the plaintiff lived with Gyasiram and studied. Since Gyasiram was not able to look after him properly he sent him to Ramchandra (P.W. ...
Tag this Judgment!