Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaora Oil Mills - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Civil Case No. 6 of 1979
Judge
Reported in[1983]143ITR325(MP)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 256(1) and 256(2)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentJaora Oil Mills
Appellant AdvocateS.C. Bagdiya, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateL.N. Gilda, Adv.
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant......circumstances of the case, therewas any material or evidence before the appellate tribunal to come tothe conclusion that 70% of the value of goods was covered by the loanadvanced by the bank itself and thereby reducing the addition of unexplained investment to 30% of the unaccounted for stocks of the value ofrs. 11,48,375?'2. after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the order of the tribunal, we are of the opinion that the proposed question of law does arise. we, therefore, frame the aforesaid question and direct the tribunal to state the case, for answer, to this court.
Judgment:

U.N. Bhachawat, J.

1. This is an application on behalf of the Department under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for framing the following question :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, therewas any material or evidence before the Appellate Tribunal to come tothe conclusion that 70% of the value of goods was covered by the loanadvanced by the bank itself and thereby reducing the addition of unexplained investment to 30% of the unaccounted for stocks of the value ofRs. 11,48,375?'

2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the order of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the proposed question of law does arise. We, therefore, frame the aforesaid question and direct the Tribunal to state the case, for answer, to this court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //