Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-04-1986
Reported in : (1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)
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 assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-22-1986
Reported in : 1986MPLJ641
B.C. Varma, J.1. The challenge in this petition is to the Madhya Pradesh Entertainments Duty and Advertisements Tax (Amendment) Act, 1983 (No. 34 of 1983) and the Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Exhibition of Films by Video Cassette Recorder) Licensing Rules, 1983. The Act came into force in the State of Madhya Pradesh from 1-12-1983 while the Rules from 7-10-1983.2. The petitioner No. 1 is an association of exhibitors of films through projectors in cinema talkies while petitioner No. 2 is a partner in one of such talkies known as Jayanti Talkies, Jabalpur'. The members of the petitioner association are engaged in the business of distribution and exhibition of cinematograph films. Such exhibition of films in this State is regulated by the Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 (No. XVII of 1952) and the Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1972. These rules regulate the grant of license for running such exhibition of cinematograph films. The term 'cinema' is defined to mean 'any p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-29-1986
Reported in : [1988]64CompCas700(MP)
V.D. Gyani, J. 1. This order shall also dispose of Civil Revision No. 377 of 1985 (Bhandari Iron and Steel Co. P. Ltd. v. Dr. Gokuldas], which arises out of the same order dated October 1, 1985, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Indore, in Execution Case No. 6-B of 1962. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated October 1, 1985, passed by the 7th Addl. District Judge, Indore, in Execution Case No. 6B of 1962, thereby rejecting the appellants' objection and refusing to set aside the sale in execution case involving mortgaged properties. 3. Brief facts of this appeal are that the appellants, M/s. Bhandari Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd., Indore, mortgaged certain properties, including the land sold, in execution with the State Bank of Indore, which filed a suit No. 6B of 1962 and obtained a decree for Rs. 20,19,435.83 against appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who were directors and guarantors of the first appellant, the company. The first execution was filed by the decree-holder-bank o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-19-1986
Reported in : [1987]166ITR534(MP)
C.P. Sen, J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted for resolving the conflict in two sets of opinion by different High Courts regarding the application of Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act in respect of payment of interest to the partner of a firm as a non-allowable or allowable deduction. In fact, there are two conflicting decisions of this court in Jalamchand Mangilal v. CIT : [1982]138ITR343(MP) and 347 and in Balchand Hashmatrai & Co. v. CIT : [1986]161ITR121(MP) which have been noticed by this court in Sobhagmal Phoolchand v. CIT (infra p. 541) and the matter has been referred to a larger Bench. One view is that irrespective of the capacity in which a person joins a partnership firm and is paid interest by the firm, Section 40(b) is a bar to payment of interest to the partner of the firm as an allowable deduction, while the other view is that when the interest is paid to a partner in a somewhat different capacity, the amount has to be deducted as an allowable deduction.2. Brief...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-21-1986
Reported in : 1988(15)ECC258; 1987(11)LC434(MP); 1987(32)ELT489(MP)
G.G. Sohani, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27-5-1985 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) under Section 35A(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in appeals No. 134-135-C.E./APPL. IND/84.2. The material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows :-(a) Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of that company. The petitioner company carries on the business of manufacturing cellulosic spun yarn at its factory at Biora, District Rajgarh.(b) The excise duty payable in respect of manufacture of cellulosic spun yarn is specified in Tariff Item No. 18(01) of the First Schedule to the Act. The relevant entry is as follows :'18. III. Cellulosic spun yarn :yarn, in which man-made fibre of cellulosic origin predom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-28-1986
Reported in : [1987]163ITR840(MP)
Sohani, J.1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, 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 two questions of law to this court for its opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-16-1986
Reported in : 1990(0)MPLJ20
M.D. Bhatt, J.1. This is the appeal of the accused Shyamrao, who on his conviction under sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code has been sentenced to seven years' R. I. on each count with the direction for the concurrent running of these sentences.2. The prosecutrix Mst. Babybai Gond is the wife of P.W.4 Ramesh and at the relevant time of the incident i.e. on 23-6-1983, she was staying at her husband's house in village Gangatwada. Parents of the prosecutrix Mst. Baby were residents of village Lodhikheda and the appellant-accused well knew the prosecutrix and her parents, inasmuch as, he had been living in front of their house at Lodhikheda for a few months, long before the incident. A day prior to 23-6-1983, the appellant-accused had come to Gangatwada and had stayed at the house of the prosecutrix's husband Ramesh. On the next day, at about mid-noon, the appellant-accused, P.W.12 Mst. Babybai and her husband P.W.4 Ramesh had started by bus together, for Lodhikheda; but on the w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-12-1986
Reported in : II(1986)ACC314; AIR1986MP251; 1986MPLJ689
B.M. Lal, J. 1. The order passed in this petition shall also govern the disposal of the connected Miscellaneous Petition No. 252 of 1984 (Bapulal Kesharimal & Company v. Regional Transport Authority, Ujjan and Anr.), No. 878 of 84 (Akhtari Begum & Sons and Anr. v. Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain and Anr.). No. 3469 of 1984 (Vijay Motor Transport Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.), No. 725 of 1983 (Ramesh Chand v. Regional Transport Authority, Indore and Anr.), No. 1599 of 1985 (Ramprasad Purohit and Anr. v. State of M. P. and Anr.), and No. 3195 of 85 (M. P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.). 2. These petitions are under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioners who are bus operators, are seeking to quash the notifications issued by the various Regional Transport Authorities, wherein reservation of bus routes for Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes has been notified, on the ground...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-14-1986
Reported in : [1987]166ITR604(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 is justified in holding that the assessees, who is an association of persons, is entitled to deduction as per Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 80L of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows :The assessees are executors of the will of late Shri R. C. Jail and are assessed in respect of the income of the estate of the deceased in the status of an association of persons. For the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee's claim for deduction of dividend income was allowed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 80L of the Act. That exemption was, however, withdrawn by the Income-tax Officer in reassessmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-24-1986
Reported in : 1987MPLJ308
B.C. Varma, J. 1. The order in this petition shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 2944 of 1984 (Sushil Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. and Anr.), Miscellaneous Petition No. 1319 of 1985 (Sushil Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. and Anr.), Miscellenous Petition No. 3784 of 1985 (Santosh Kumar Jain v. State of M.P. and Anr.), Miscellaneous Petition No. 3785 of 1985 (Vishwaraj Singh Thakur v. State of M.P. and Anr.), Miscellaneous Petition No. 5 of 1986 Sanjay Singh Parihar & Brothers v. State of M.P. and 2 others), Miscellaneous Petition No. 68 of .1986 (Pyaralal v. State of M.P. and Anr.), and Miscellaneous Petition No. 977 of 1986' (Sanjay Singh Parihar and 2 others v. State of M.P. and 5 others) as in all common question of law arises for decision. 2. The petitioner in all these cases are exhibiters of films through Video Cassette Recorder (V.C.R.). They have been issueddue licenses to exhibit films through V.C.R. on a television screen under Madhya Pradesh Cinemas (...
Tag this Judgment!