Rajasthan Court June 1961 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mewar Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-23-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR72(Raj)
SARJOO PROSAD C.J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act (Act XI of 1922 as amended) submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench). The assessee, Mewar Industries Ltd., is a public limited concern (in liquidation), having its registered office at Udaipur. The assessment years under consideration are 1950-51 and 1951-52, the previous years being the financial years 1949-50 and 1950-51. It is admitted that the previous years ended on 31st March, 1950, and 31st March, 1951, respectively. The main point for consideration in this reference is whether certain sums of money admittedly received by the assessee during the financial year aforesaid should be included in the income of the assessee for purposes of assessment.We feel constrained to observe - and we do so with the utmost deference to the members of the Tribunal - that much of the confusion in this case appears to have arisen because of the manner in which these cases were disposed of on...
Babulal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-06-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ670
ORDERB.P. Beri, J.1. This criminal reference has been made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City No. 2, which raises a question of jurisdiction.2. The appellant in this case was driving a truck from Jaipur towards Harmada. This truck collided with a bicycle causing the death of one Nathu. The appellant was challaned under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and tried by the City Magistrate, Jaipur. The learned City Magistrate, found the appellant guilty tinder Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City No. 2.The learned Public Prosecutor raised an objection that as Harmada, the place of occurrence, is not within the jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City No. 2, that court 'had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that this appeal lay to the Sessions Judge of Jaipur District. The learned Counsel for the appellant also was o...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›