Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-17-1979
Reported in : (1980)15CTR(MP)142; [1980]124ITR680(MP)
G.P. Singh, C.J.1 . This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, referring for our answer the following questions of law :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the minimum penalty imposable for assessment year 1965-66 for which a return was filed after April 1, 1968, was equal to the concealed income in accordance with the amendment of Section 271(1)(c)(iii) with effect from April 1, 1968? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposing penalty was bad in law for want of jurisdiction ' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1965-66. According to the assessee, he was an employee of the firm, U.P. Saw Mills, whereas, according to the department, the assessee was a partner in that firm. The assessee filed a return on 9th August, 1968, declaring an income by way of salary of Rs. 600 from the above firm. He filed another return on 12th August, 1968, declaring therein 'nil' i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-17-1979
Reported in : AIR1981MP140; 1981MPLJ62
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge two orders issued by the Central Government under Section 18FB(1)(b) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and four orders issued under Section 18FB(2) extending the operation of the said orders up to 1st January, 1981. The petitioners also, challenge the constitutional validity of Sections 18FB and 29D of the Act.2, Petitioner No. 1 is an investment holding company and carries on the business of investment and financing monies for business and commercial purposes. Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of the petitioner-company. Respondent No. 3 is a company having a factory at Worli, Bombay, and another factory at Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh. The respondent company carries on the business of manufacturing bicycles, auto-engines and bicycle parts. The said industry is a scheduled industry under the Act. In June 1970, the petitioner company advanced a clean loan of Rs. 8.5 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-05-1979
Reported in : AIR1980MP129; 1980MPLJ729
Sohani, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 27th April, 1978 passed by the State Government under Section 41 (1) (a) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, removing the petitioner from the office of the Councillor of Municipal Council, Susner, with effect from the date of the order and further directing under Sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the Act that the petitioner shall be disqualified for further election, selection or reappointment to the office of the councillor for a period of four years from the date of his removal from the membership of the Council.2. This petition initially came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court which, by its order dated 21st September, 1978, held that the decision reported in Laxminarayan v. State of M. P. (1974 MPLJ 314) : (AIR 1975 Madh Pra 71) holding that the State Government, while passing an order of removal under Section 41 (2) of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-25-1979
Reported in : AIR1979MP173; 1978MPLJ70
G.P. Singh, C.J.1. This order shall also dispose of Misc, Petition No. 396 of 1977.2. The petitioners in both these petitions which are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenged the constitutional validity of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 19-C of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 19.60, hereinafter referred to as the Act.3. Petitioner No. 1 in Misc. Petition No. 342 of 1977 is a citizen of India. Petitioners 2 and 3 in this petition are co-operative societies registered under the provisions of the Act. Petitioner No. 1 is a member of these societies. He is also a member of some other cooperative societies of Chhatarpur District. By order dated 23rd June 1977, passed under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 19-C of the Act, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, expelled the petitioner No. 1 from all the societies of which he was a member for a period of five years.4. The petitioner in Misc. Petition No. 396 of 1977 was a member of four co-operative soc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-21-1979
Reported in : AIR1979MP188; 1979MPLJ555
G. P. Singh, C.J. 1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. Petns. Nos. 181 and 192 both of 1974.2. The petitioner in Misc. Petn. No. 40 of 1973 is the owner of Block No. JFG HI forming part of Bungalow No. 9 of Kings-way situated within the limits of the Jabalpur Cantonment. The petitioners in Misc. Petn. No. 181 of 1974 are owners of the building known as Navneet Talkies which is also situated within the limits of the said Cantonment. The petitioners in Misc. Petn. No. 192 of 1974 are owners of the plot of land over which Navneet Talkies stands and which was leased out by them for construction of the cinema building. The petitioners in all these petitions which are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, pray that the extension of the Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Sthawar Sampatti Kar Adhiniyam, 1964, to Cantonment areas be declared ultra vires of the Constitution.3. The Adhiniyam was enacted by the Madhya Pradesh State Legislature and it came into force on 1st April 1964. Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-03-1979
Reported in : AIR1979MP119; 1979MPLJ208
C.P. Sen, J.1. The State has preferred this appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, against the judgment and decree of the District Judge setting aside the award given by the Arbitrator under Section 30 of the Act.2. The respondent is a contractor and his tender for construction of Hasdeo project Main Canal, excavation and forming embankment from R.D. 12301 M. to R.D. 12720 M. and R.D. 13921 M. to R.D. 14160 M. Group No. IV for an amount of Rs. 1,38697.60p./- was accepted by the superintending Engineer, Hasdeo Project, Circle Korba, and the acceptance was conveyed to the respondent on 17-3-1969. It appears that before execution of the contract some dispute arose between the parties regarding interpretation of the rate for item No. 11 of the tender and the superintending Engineer wanted to put his own interpretation by way of clarification but the same was not accepted by the respondent. So on 21-5-69 a written contract was executed by the parties on the basis of the tende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-05-1979
Reported in : [1981]127ITR650(MP)
Vijayvargiya, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '), the Income-tax AppellateTribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the entire interest amount of Rs. 43,431 was not assessable in the assessment year 1970-71, and that only a sum of Rs. 4,815 of interest relevant to the assessment year 1970-71, was assessable in that year '2. The material facts giving rise to this reference as set out in the statement of the case are as follows :The assessee, His Highness Maharaja Yashwant Rao Pawar of Dewas (junior), an individual, derived income, among others, from agricultural land belonging to him. Some agricultural land measuring 73.39 acres belonging to the assessee was acquired by the State Government on March 23, 1965. The possession of the land acqui...
Tag this Judgment!