Rajasthan Court September 1979 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.
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. H.H. Shri Sawai Maharaj Deo Sir Tej Singh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1979
Reported in: [1980]124ITR697(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This reference has been made to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ' C ', under Section 26(1) ofthe G.T. Act, 1958, at the instance of the Commissioner of Gift-tax, Rajas-than, Jaipur. The circumstances which had given rise to this reference may be briefly stated :In the year 1952 the marriage of Princess Pratap Kumari, d/o Shri Tej Singh, former ruler of the State of Alwar (who is hereinafter called ' the assessee ') was settled with Shri Digvijay Singh, son of Shri Pratap Singh, the former ruler of Wankaner in Gujarat. On June 15, 1952, an agreement was entered into between the two royal families of Alwar and Wankaner, according to which the assessee agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the royal house of Wankaner, out of which a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs was to be paid at the time of the tilak ceremony, while the remaining amount of Rs. 3 lakhs was to be paid at the time of marriage. The assessee paid a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs to Shri Pratap Singh...
Ramchand Vs. Laxmikumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj128
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case the defendant-petitioner has filed this revision application under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 27-4-1979. On this date the defendant wanted to examine one more witness Shiv Kumar in spite of the fact that on an earlier date of hearing, he had mentioned before the court that he wants to examine now Kajod only. An oral prayer was made for examining Shiv Kumar on 4-4-79 but the same was rejected.2. The order-sheet dated 4-4-79 is as under(Matter in Hindi omitted.--Ed.)3. On 4-4-79 the evidence of the defendant was also closed after Kajod was examined, then the prayer to examine Shiv Kumar was rejected.4. The order-sheet of 4-4-79 shows that the defendant moved an application for examination of Shiv Kumar even after his evidence was closed and oral request was rejected. The court fixed this application for arguments on 27-4-79.5. No revision has been filed against the order dated 4-4-79 by which the ev...
Qurban and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN730
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Petitioners Qurban son of Lakha and Lakha son of Shafi have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ of certiorari or prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued restraining the respondents State of Rajasthan and Tehsildar Chohtan froth ejecting them from khasra No. 90 measuring 33 bighas 11 biswas situate in village Jalila, tehsil Chohtan and further that a direction may also be issued for regularisation of their case Whereby quashing order Anx. C dated April 19, 1979.2. The petitioners are residents of village Jalila and are landless cultivators. Their case is that in Smt. 2032 they took possession of Sawai Chak Government land khasra No. 90 measuring 33 bighas and 11 biswas, and since then, they have been in continuous cultivatory possession of it. Their case further is that the unauthorised occupation made on the aforesaid land should have been regularised as per Government C...
Bharat Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1979
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1474
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. Kamal, Mukhtyar Singh (since deceased) and accused-appellant Bharat went to the Punjab for some business to eke out livelihood. As the earnings were not divided between the parties, the matter was referred to the Panchayat, on March 18, 1978. No settlement, however, could be arrived at by the Panchayat. At about 7 or 8 p. m. the accused and the deceased met on the way near the house of Kamal. Mukhtyar Singh asked the accused not to precipitate quarrel and make payment of the amount of his share. Without giving any answer the accused took out a knife and thrust it into the stomach of the deceased. Mukhtyar Singh was admitted as indoor patient in the General Hospital, Alwar. P. W. 8 Dr. Prahlad Swaroop Agarawal informed the police, vide Ex. P./13, of the admission of the deceased as an indoor-patient in the Hospital. P. W. 7 Indra Kumar, S. H. O. went to the Hospital and recorded the statement of Mukhtyar Singh in the presence of P. W. 1 Dr. Subhash Sapra. The statemen...
Gendmal Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj107; 1979()WLN695
ORDERS.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. The petitioner is an existing operator on Partabgarh-Banswara via Dhariawad route and holds one non-temporary stage carriage permit renewed up to September 27, 1981. Non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 are also operators of Partabagrh-Kesariaji route via Dhariawad and non-petitioner No. 6 is the existing operator of Dhariawad-Banswara route. The case of the petitioner is that route of non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 overlaps the petitioner's route from Partabgarh to Dhariawad (distance is of nearly 28 miles). Three stage carriage permits are said to be in existence performing three return services for the same. Each one of the three operators of Partabgarh-Kesariaji route avails one return service per day. The petitioner has stated that formerly, on Partabgarh-Kesariaji route, quota fixed was three stage carriages and one return service only. On September 21, 1978, the three operators of Partabgarh-Kesariaji route via Dhariawad, Dahudar, Kalyanpura etc. submitted an ap...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1979
Reported in: [1980]123ITR298(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. This is a consolidated reference made under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act and arises in the following circumstances:M/s. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd., Jaipur (hereinafter called ' the assessee '), carries on business of manufacture of steel and iron frames and structures. The plant and machinery was installed some years ago and as on March 31, 1958, the book value of the fixed assets of the assessee was shown as Rs. 41,47,318.32 in the balance-sheet of the assessee-company for the year 1957-58. In the aforesaid balance-sheet depreciation for the year ending March 31, 1958, to the extent of Rs. 1,49,058 was written off as also depreciation for the year 1956-57 was written off to the extent of Rs. 1,50,081. The profit and loss account also took into account depreciation to the extent of Rs. 2,10,000, in respect of arrears of past depreciation on the ground that depreciation was not claimed by the assessee-company in the earlier years, prior to March 31, 1956, as t...
Ganeshmal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN689
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Ganeshmal who is resident of Bhinmal and is a voter and tax-payer. There is a plot of land measuring 5344 sq. Gaz (the sq. Gaz referred to in this judgment bears the dimension 2' x 2'), situate at Badlawala Choraya, Bhinmal within the limits of Bhinmal Municipality. The case of the petitioner is that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 (Keshrimal and Ganpatlal) claimed their title in respect of the aforesaid plot on the basis of two sale-deeds dated March 14, 1958 which they obtained from certain Bhambies. The vendor-Bhambies, according to respondent No. 2 Municipal Board Bhinmal ('the Board' hereafter) had no right or title to transfer the plot in favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The Board initiated proceeding for ejectment against respondents Nos. 3 and 4. On March 12, 1967, an order for ejectment was passed against respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on the ground that they were trespassers. This order was execut...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Zoraster and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1979
Reported in: [1982]133ITR559(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, 'B ', under Section 66(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '), by which the following question has been referred by the Tribunal to this court : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the entire expenditure of Rs. 85,620 incurred by the assessed on renovation of its picture house was an expenditure of revenue nature allowable in its assessment for the assessment year 1957-58?'2. The circumstances which have given rise to this reference may be, briefly, stated : 3. M/s. S. Zoraster and Company, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ' the assessee '), is carrying on business, inter alia, of running a picture house known as 'Prem Prakash Talkies '. In the year of account corresponding to the assessment year 1957-58, the assessee carried out renovation of the picture house and expended a sum of Rs. 85,62...
indra and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1979
Reported in: (1979)12CTR(Raj)97; 1979(12)WLN674
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi, at the request of M/s. Indra & Co., a partnership firm (hereinafter to be referred to as ' the assessee '), carrying on business at Jodhpur.2. The assessee is a registered firm of which Jeewan Lal is a partner (hereinafter referred to as ' the assessee-partner '). The relevant assessment year is 1959-60. A notice under Section 22(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'), was issued by the ITO, ' D ' Ward, Jodhpur, to both the assessees on May 9, 1959. The assessee filed its return with the ITO, ' A' Ward, Jodhpur, who had jurisdiction over the place of business of the firm, on September 2, 1960. The assessee-partner filed his return before the same ITO on July 4, 1961. The assessment of the firm was completed on August 20, 1962, whereas the assessment of the partner was completed two days later, that is, on A...
indra and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1979
Reported in: (1982)13CTR(Raj)353; [1982]134ITR466(Raj)
C. M.LODHA C.J. - This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi, at the request of M/s. Indra & Co., a partnership firm (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the assessee'), carrying on business at Jodhpur.The assessee is a registered firm of which Jeewan Lal is a partner (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee-partner'). The relevant assessment year is 1959-60. A notice under s. 22(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was issued by the ITO, 'D' Ward, Jodhpur, to both the assessees on May 9, 1959. The assessee filed its return with the ITO, 'A' Ward, Jodhpur, who had jurisdiction over the place of business of the firm, on September 2, 1960. The assessee-partner filed his return before the same ITO on July 4, 1961. The assessment of the firm was completed on August 20, 1962, whereas the assessment of the partner was completed two days later, that is, on August 22, 1962.The ITO...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »