Rajasthan Court February 1984 Judgments
Rajasthan Central Stores (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Raj)241; [1985]156ITR90(Raj)
Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has referred to this court the following question under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ('the Act'):' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions for payment of penal interest amounting to Rs. 5,050 on sales tax collections withheld by the assessee and utilised for the purpose of its own business, was not admissible as a deduction in computing its total income '2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under :Rajasthan Central Stores (P.) Ltd., applicant herein (' the assessee'), is a trader. It had committed default in the payment of sales tax payable under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (' the Sales Tax Act'), and it was made liable to pay penal interest for its failure to remit the sales tax into the Government account within time. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 5,050 as deductible expenditure in computing the total income on account of...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash and anr. Vs. the Speaker, Rajasthan Legislative Assembly an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN123
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. The Petitioners In This Application Under Article 226 Of The Constitution of India are employed on non-gazetted posts on the Secretariat Staff of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. They are seeking herein manifold relief including an appropriate writ against the Speaker, Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, the State of Rajasthan and some other functionaries prohibiting them from paying any amount to the gazetted officers of the secretarial staff of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly by way of honorarium.2. The Assembly Secretariat consists of a Secretary, a number of other gazetted officers and a large number of ministerial officials and class IV servants Article 187 of the Constitution lays down, inter alia, that until provision is made by the Legislature of the State, the Governor may, after consultation with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service persons appointed to the secretariat staff of the Ass...
Tag this Judgment!Gulraj Poonamchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Raj)244; [1984]148ITR326(Raj)
Bhargava, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the following questions of law have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the gift made by Poonam Chand to Paras Mal merely by making entries in his own books, without there being sufficient cash balance at that time, could not constitute a valid gift? 2. In case it is held that there was no valid gift, whether Paras Mal could become a partner in the HUF business without separate property and investment ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not granting registration to the firm under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. In fact, there should have been two separate references for two different assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 ; but since common questions aros...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and 10 ors. Vs. Asharam and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN165
D.P. Gupta, J.1. These are 10 Special appeals directed against orders passed by learned Single Judge of this court, allowing ten similar writ petitions and writ petition referred by a learned Single Judge to the Division Bench. As all these appeals involve common questions of law and arise in similar circumstances, they are being disposed of together by a common order. The writ petitioners in each one of these cases are displaced persons, having migrated to India from territories which now form part of West Pakistan and each one of them had a verified claim for compensation in respect of agricultural lands held by him in. West Pakistan, before migrating from those territories.2. It is common ground between the parties that the lands in dispute were formerly in the occupation of Muslim tenants and mostly those lands were situated in the Jagir of Chhatargarh which formed part, of the erstwhile State of Bikaner. It appears that some of the Muslim tenants left their agricultural lands oh a...
Tag this Judgment!Pala Ram Vs. Mangtu Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj37
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This appeal has been filed against an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dated December 3, 1982 allowing the writ petition filed by Mangtu Ram in the matter of election of Sarpanch under the Rajasthan PanchayatAct and the Rules made thereunder.2. The appellant Palaram and the respondent Mangtu Ram were the two contesting candidates for the Office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mahendrapura. The election for the said office took place on December 10, 1981. Out of 1862 votes cast at the aforesaid election, Mangtu Ram received 879 while Palaram appellant received 873 votes and 110 votes were rejected on the ground of being invalid. Mangtu Ram, having received more votes than Palaram, was declared to be duly elected as Sarpanch. Palaram appellant thereupon filed an election petition in the Court of Munsif, Nohar challenging the election of Mangturam to the office of Sarpanch. One of the main grounds taken in the election petition filed by Palaram was t...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surana and Company
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1984
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(Raj)68; [1985]151ITR775(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter-called 'the Tribunal'), has by its order dated August 8, 1974, referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion, as arising out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated July 24, 1973.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee, M/s. Surana & Co., Bhilwara, is a registered partnership firm. In respect of the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee was required to file a return of its total income by June 30, 1968. The return was actually filed by the assessee on March 13, 1969, after a delay of over eight months. The assessee had paid a sum of Rs. 4,475 as advance tax under Section 210 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). After the provisional assessment was completed on the basis of the return filed, ...
Tag this Judgment!Prithvi Singh Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1984
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(Raj)74; [1984]148ITR516(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as ' the Appellate Tribunal'), has referred the following two questions to this court for its opinion, as arising out of its order dated November 19, 1973.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty imposable for not filing the returns under the Wealth-tax Act, in respect of assessment years prior to in April 1, 1969, will be governed by section 18 of the Wealth-tax Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1969, or both by the section as well as by the section as amended with effect from April 1, 1969, where the defaults continued even after April 1, 1969 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that penalty is leviable on the assessee even though returns of wealth have not been filed by him ' 2. Prithvi Singh of Bisalpur (hereinafter called ' the assessee ') failed to file returns of his net wealth under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Shraini Dan Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)43
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Shraini Dan seeks to quash the order (Ex. 7) dated April 16, 1983 of the Collector, Jodhpur, by which he was suspended.2, It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed by the Collector, Banner as Patwari on July 9,1959 and, thereafter, he continued as such. The petitioner was transferred to Jodhpur district from Banner district by order of the Collector and thereafter, he was posted as Patwari in Solankiyatalla village vide order dated November 6, 1978, of the Collector, Jodhpur. For the purpose of the disposal of the writ petition, it is not necessary to re-count the facts in detail. However, it may be mentioned that the petitioner was suspended by order (Ex. 7) dated February 16, 1983 of the Collector, Jodhpur. The petitioner filed the writ petition on May 20, 1983 for quashing the order of suspension and also for payment of the arrears of the salary.3. Show cause notice was issued t...
Tag this Judgment!Hardeep Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN225
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Gurucharan Singh filed an oral report before the SHO, Suratsingh of Police Station Laxmangargh, District Alwar, which was registered as Cr. Case No. 23 dated 17th March, 1975, at 1 A.M. According to Gurucharan Singh, there was enmity between him and the other group of persons, who are accused, as the houses and the fields of both the parties are side by side. It was alleged that the accused persons had been doing damage everyday, and therefore, they were inimical to the informant and his persons. On 26th March, 1975, at about 5 PM, the brother-in-law of the informant, Singarasingh went out from the house for getting his 'Sarson' (Mustard) weighed. He went to bow his head to Gurdwara first, and when he came out and for making water (urination) he stood, he was attacked by the accused persons by various weapons, namely, Farsi, Lathi, Pistol, Ballam, axe etc. Thereupon, the informant, Tarasingh, Swa(sic)ansingh, Narendrasingh, Daleep Kaur, Balwant Kaur, Surjeet Kaur, Gurm...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chandra Ajmera Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN758
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Firm M/s Prakash Chandra Ajmera, was a licensee for sale of kerosene oil under the provisions of Rajasthan Kerosene Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1971, Shri Dev Bux, PW 5 Pravartan Adhikari (Enforcement Officer), at Kishangarh received soma complaints and checked the stock of the kerosene oil, and found that the balance of the kerosene oil as per the stock register is only 5 litres. The stock register of the firm was seized. PW 5, found that the stock register has not been maintained properly and does (sic not) give correct picture of the stock. Sales Register Ex. P 17, was also checked, and it was found that on 19th March, 1974, only 283 litres kerosene has been sold but the total has been shown 346 litres, and thus there is a mistake in total. In Ex. P 12, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 the mistakes were detected. Ordinarily the stock must be about 1450 litres of kerosene, but it is was not found so after the correction of totalling mistake.2. Learned Counsel for the petit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »