Rajasthan Court August 1969 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Venichand Maganlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1969
Reported in: [1970]78ITR120(Raj)
D.M. Bhandari, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' (hereinafter called 'j:he Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the:,Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'new Act').2. The assessee, Messrs. Venichand Maganlal, Sagwara, is a. registered firm.It was called upon to file a return of its income under Section 22(2), of theIndian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the 'old Act'), which wasserved on 26th May, 1961, The. return was due oil 1st July, ,1961, but wasfiled on 5th November, 1962. For this default, the Income-tax Officer,C-Ward, Udaipur, imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,380 under Section 271(1)(i) ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961, at the rate of 2% of the tax for each month ofdefault. The appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Jodhpur,by the assessee was dismissed. On second appeal by the assessee, theTribunal took the view that the measure of penalty for a default mustbe in accordance with law which was in force at the time wh...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Gift Tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur Vs. Madan Mohan, Jaipu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj219; [1970]75ITR89(Raj); 1969()WLN348
Bhandari, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'A' (hereinafter called the Tribunal) has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under Section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act):--'(1) Whether on the facts and In the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was competent to entertain and decide any objection to the Gift Tax Act. 1958 being ultra vires or unconstitutional in regard to certain provisions contained in it?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Gift Tax Act, 1958 is ultra vires the powers of the Parliament and unconstitutional in so far as it purported to impose tax on gifts of land and building?'2. The facts stated in the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal are that Madan Mohan assessee gifted one bungalow situate at Jaipur to his wife and three sons during the accounting period ending on 31st March, 1963. The Gift Tax Officer, B Ward, Jaipur ta...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shankerlal Naraindas
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR642(Raj)
D.M. Bhandari, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, Bench 'C' (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), has made this reference under Section 256(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'new Act').2. Notice under Section 23(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the 'old Act'), was served on Messrs, Shankerlal Naraindas (hereinafter called 'the assessee') on 24th October, 1958, for filing the return for the assessment year 1958-59. The assessee, however, filed the return on 25th September, 1961, and the assessment was completed on 24th August, 1962. No extension of time for filing the return was sought by the assessee and as such the Income-tax Officer, Pali, initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) of the new Act for imposing penalty. In response to this notice, the assessee filed an application giving grounds for filing the return late, but the same were held as not showing any justifiable or reasonable cause for the delay in filing the ...
Tag this Judgment!Keshar Singh Vs. Mst. Deu and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN443
B.P. Beri, J.1. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for revising an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajasthan on the 5th of September, 1967 in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.2. The brief facts which give rise to this application are that Keshar Singh who claims to be the adopted son of Nahar Singh, made an application on the 4th of March, 1967 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. that 21 agricultural fields situate in village Farara at Gujra well belong to him and have been in his cultivatory possession from the date of his adoption namely, 23rd August, 1952, and that he had paid land revenue in regard to these fields. His adoptive mother Mst. Deu. widow of Nahar Singh, who lived with him and who was maintained by him, created some iris-understanding between her and Lal Singh, who is the husband of Mst. Deu's daughter, and he was claiming the fields against the applicant and threatened to commit a breach of the peace in order to disposs...
Tag this Judgment!Banshi and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Raj50; 1971CriLJ405
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. A reference was submitted by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, recommending that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Amber, dated January 13, 1966, declaring party No. 1's possession over the disputed property, i.e., the temple, situate in village Shakarpura, in proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C., be set aside, The brief facts pertaining to the reference are as follows:--2. Party No. 1, Badri Prasad submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur, on May 20. 1965, to the effect that he was the Pujari (priest) of the temple of Shri Sitaramji of the village Shakarpura. Party No. 2, comprising Banshi and Jagdish, wanted to unlawfully dispossess him from the said temple and that on that account there was every apprehension of breach of the peace. Party No. 1, therefore prayed that proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. be initiated to prevent breach of the peace. That application was forwarded by the Superinten...
Tag this Judgment!Jot Ram Vs. Taru Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN395
L.S. Mehta, J.1. This is a miscellaneous appeal against the order of learned Senior Civil Judge. Ganganagar, dated December 23, 1967, in civil miscellaneous case No. 41 of 1967, by which he ordered that the wards, Mahendra and Kamla, minor children of Taru Ram, be returned to the custody of thetr natural guardian.2. The facts of this case can be ranged within a narrow compass. Taru-Ram, it appears, filed an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Ganganagar, on June 2, 1967, alleging that Jot Ram had been forcibly keeping both his minor children, Mahendra and Kamla, for sometime. The applicant being their natural guardian, the custody of his children should, therefore, be ordered to be delivered to him. The non-applicant Jot Ram submitted a reply, on September 22, 1967, to the effect that the mother of the two children had expired. After the death of their mother Taru Ram contracted a second marriage. The step-mothe...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Krishna Toshniwal and ors. Vs. Maha Laxmi Mills Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1969
Reported in: 1969WLN525
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This petition for the winding up of the Maha Lakshmi Beawar hereinafter referred to as 'the. Company'' public company limited by shares, has been filed on September 30 1966, alleging that the Company is 'unable to pay its debts and that on account of mismanagement of its affairs it is just and equitable that it should be wound up. An order was made by this Court on October 25, 1966 for the issue of notices and the advertisement of the petition, The Company filed a reply disputing the allegations regarding its financial position and mismanagement. A reply was also filed on behalf of the Authorited Controller in which it was pointed out, inter alia, that the 'Central Government had taken over the management of the Company under Section 18A of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as 'The Act', and had appointed him as the Authorized Controller by notification (Ex.A 1) No. F. 1(24) Tax (B)/65 dated January 9, 1967 for a period of ...
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Vs. Manakchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Raj55; 1969()WLN482
C.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for eviction and arrears of rent.2. One Awani Kumar Mukerjee owned two shops Nos. 56 and 57 situated on the station road, Jaipur. Behind these shops there is a latrine and bath room. It is alleged by the plaintiff Manakchand that he purchased the aforesaid property from Awani Kumar Mukherjee on 26-7-62 for a sum of Rs. 10,500/- by a registered sale-deed. Defendant Madanlal was at that time occupying the premises in question as a tenant of Awani Kumar Mukerjee at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-, in pursuance of a rent note alleged to have been executed by the defendant's father dated 1st of June, 1953. It is averred in para No. 3 of the plaint that this rent note was for one year and on the expiry of this period of one year the defendant's father became a statutory tenant. It is further alleged that after the death of defendant's father Devi Sahai, the defendant continued to occupy the premises in question in the capa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Motilal ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR43(Raj)
Bhandari, C.J.1. As D. B. Civil Income-tax Reference No. 66/66 and D. B. Civil Wealth-tax Reference No. 36/66 arise out of the same facts, they are disposed of by this single judgment.2. We first take up D. B. Civil Income-tax Reference No. 66/66. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the Act'):--'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the gift of Rs. 4 lakhs was voidable and as such the interest accruing on the aforesaid gifted amount did not accrue to the assessee family for income-tax purposes?'3. The statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal shows that the assessee is a Hindu undivided family whose karta is Shri Ramswaroop. By a deed dated 25th February, 1956, Shri Ramswaroop gifted to the undermentioned persons the amounts noted against their names:Rs.1.Shri Shankerlal (br...
Tag this Judgment!Shikhar Chand Sethi Vs. the Divisional Mechanical Engineer (E), Wester ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Raj210
ORDERV.P. Tyagi, J. 1. Petitioner Shikhar Chand has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and it arises out of the following circumstances:-- On February 2, 1959. petitioner Shikhar Chand was working as a Second Fireman, colloquially known as 'Agwala'. He was booked on Engine No. 9545-W.G. which was nominated to run the goods train 966 Up from Gangapur City to Kota. The crew on that engine consisted of driver Dukhi Ram, First Fireman Chatrulal and the petitioner as a Second Fireman (Agwala). It is alleged by the petitioner that the driver found certain deficiencies in the engine and the matter was brought to the notice of the Supervisor to make good the deficiencies. It is said that the staff did not properly attend to the complaints made by the driver and the crew was asked to take the engine out of the loco shed. It is further alleged that the feeding staff did not provide engine drenching pipe on that engine and therefore the petitioner had to make repeated ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »