Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-23-1978
Reported in : 1978MPLJ555
A.P. Sen, C.J. 1. These three references under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raise a common question of Jaw and, therefore, they are disposed . of by this common judgment.2. In Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 49 of 1972, the Income-tax AppellateTribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has referred a question of law, at theinstance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, arising from its consolidatedorder dated June 25, 1971, in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 3047 (Bom) and 3048(Bom) of 1968-69, pertaining to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62,to the High Court for its opinion, namely : ' Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunalwas justified in law in holding that the rent received by the assessee fromthe various departments of the Government for occupying the assessee'sbuildings, are taxable as receipts from the business and not as incomefrom property, for each of the two assessment years 1960-61 and 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-21-1978
Reported in : [1979]116ITR881(MP)
ORDEROza, J.1. This and the other five (M.C.C. Nos. 148 and 150 to 153 all of 1976) are petitions under Section 66(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, read with Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. All these cases involve identical question and this order will govern the disposal of the other five petitions as well. The various petitions pertain to the respective years of assessment.1.M.C.C. No.149 of 1976assessment year1942-432.,,153 of 1976,, ,,1943-443.,,151 of 1976,, ,,1944-454.,,150 of 1976,, ,,1945-465.,,148 of 1976,, ,,1946-476.,,152 of 1976,, ,,1947-482. The ITO by his order assessed the non-applicant in the status of anunregistered firm as non-resident and as large sums were due to be paidby the non-applicant and the same were not paid within the time limitallowed by notice under Section 156 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referredto as 'the Act') the ITO issued a notice under Section 221(1) of the said Act toM/s. Kalyanmal Mills Ltd., Indore, which is one of the partners of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : May-06-1978
Reported in : [1979]120ITR257(MP)
A.P. Sen, C.J.1. This is a writ petition by Nathuram Kapoor to quash the notice issued by the ITO, 'B' Ward, Indore, dated March 29, 1973, under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for reopening of his assessment for the assessment year 1956-57.2. The assessee is a wholesale dealer in cloth and yarn. For the assessment year 1956-57, the accounting year of which ended on 31st March, 1956, the petitioner was assessed on a total income of Rs. 33,077 under Section 23(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, as per return filed by him. Along with the return, the petitioner filed profit and loss account. The ITO, 'A' Ward, Indore, by his order of assessment dated January 15, 1957, accepted the return stating that there was all round improvement in results due to the improved tone of the market. It appears that the attention of the ITO was not drawn to the fact that there was a cash credit entry in the books of account for that year showing a deposit by Capt. Narendra-singh Motilal Bhandari to the tun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-25-1978
Reported in : [1979]119ITR688(MP)
A.P. Sen, C.J.1. These two reference applications under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, raise a common question and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In the first mentioned case, i.e., Misc. Civil Case No. 77 of 1973, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, at the instance of the assessee, has referred to the court for its opinion certain questions of law, said to arise from its consolidated order in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 819 and 820 of 1971-72, dated June 15, 1972, pertaining to the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, namely :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that in view of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) a charge of the gross and wilful neglect on the part of the assessee is proved ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was lawfully correct in determining the penalty at 20% of the tax sought to be avoided ' 3. In the second case, i.e., Misc. Civi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : May-06-1978
Reported in : AIR1978MP237
A.P. Sen, C.J. 1. This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent by the plaintiff is directed against a judgment of Bishambhar Dayal, C. J., dated 14-4-1971, affirming the judgment and decree of the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Satna, dated 11-11-1965, setting aside the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Class II, Satna, dated 17-4-1961, and dismissing the plaintiff's suit based on title for possession, of sir lands bearing khasra No. 332, area 11-64 acres, and khasra No. 551, area 0.60 acre, total area 12.24 acres, situate in village Dengrahat.2. The plaintiff, Lal Rangnath Singh was the ex-Jagirdar of Dengrahat in the erstwhile State of Vindhya Pradesh. He created a usufructuary mortgage of the suit lands by executing a registered mortgage-deed, dated 10-5-1951, in favour of the defendant, Sheo Mangal Prasad, to secure a loan of Rs. 1.800. The Jagir was resumed by the then State Government of Vindhya Pradesh under the provisions of the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs and Land...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-22-1978
Reported in : AIR1978MP213
J.S. Verma, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Dr. Srikrishna Rajoria, a medical practitioner residing in the town of Harsud and a voter and tax-payer of Harsud Notified Area, seeks a writ of certiorarj to quash the State Government Notification No. 590-XVIII-II-77, dated Bhopal the 30th Sept. 1977 (Annexure-C) by which the State Government has constituted a Notified Area Committee consisting of nominated members only, in exercise of the powers conferred by the Second Proviso to Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 341 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (No. 37 of 1961).2. In the year 1971, the State Government, by a notification issued under Section 340 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') declared as 'Notified Area,' the area which earlier existed as a Gram Panchayat at Harsud. At the same time, the State Government, by another notification dated 3rd Nov. 1971 constitut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-15-1978
Reported in : 1979MPLJ344
G.P. Singh, J.1. The petitioner, Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., is a Government company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent No. 1, Special Area Development Authority for the Korba Special Area, is constituted under Section 65 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (M. P. Act No. 23 of 1973). The petitioner-company is an industrial unit in the Korba Special Area. By notice, dated 15th April, 1977, the respondent, development authority, made a demand of Rs. 13,22,100 as property tax for the year 1976-77 from the petitioner-company. By another notice, dated 16th July, 1977, the development authority demanded Rs. 13,65,673.50 as property tax from the petitioner-company for the year 1977-78. The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenges the legality of the aforesaid two demand notices.2. Before referring to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to have in mind the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-15-1978
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
Decided on : Feb-15-1978
Reported in : [1979]116ITR190(MP)
Kondaiah, J.1. At the instance of the applicant-assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has submitted a statementof case under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, payment of Rs. 30,000 to M/s. Pitty Brothers, Bombay, is a speculative loss governed by Expln. 2 to Section 24 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, corresponding to Section 43(5) of the 1961 Act or is a normal trading loss ?'2. In order to understand the scope of the question it is necessary to refer briefly to the material facts either admitted or found by the Tribunal that gave rise to the question. For the assessment year 1962-63, the corresponding accounting year ending with November 8, 1961, M/s. Thakurlal Shivprakash Poddar of Mehnagar, hereinafter called the assessee, a registered firm, deriving income from exploiting certain mines in the district of Jhabua of Madhya Pradesh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : May-02-1978
Reported in : AIR1978MP245; 1978MPLJ633
Verma, J. 1. By our order dated 13-4-1978, we have allowed the application made by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of the delay in filing this appeal. While doing so, in that order we had stated that the reasons for holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies also to appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No, 68 of 1976), will be given later. Accordingly, we are now stating the reasons for taking this view.2. Shri V.S. Shroti, learned counsel for the respondent, placing reliance on Hukumdev Narain v. Lalit Narain, AIR 1974 SC 480 contended that the different limitation of thirty days prescribed in Sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as a result of the Amendment Act No. 68 of 1976, excluded the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1%3 to appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by virtu...
Tag this Judgment!