Rajasthan Court April 1984 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.
Sadulla and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)351
S.S. Byas, J.1. By his judgment dated November 19, 1977 the learned Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh convicted and sentenced the three appellants as under:_____________________________________________________________________________________S.No. Name of accused Offence u/s Sentence awarded._____________________________________________________________________________________1. Sadullakhao 325/34, IPC Six months' RI with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months like imprisonment, 324, IPC Three months' RI with a fine of Rs. 300/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1-1/2 months like imprisonment.2. Maidar Khan 325/34, IPC Six months' RI with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months like imprisonment. 324/34, IPC Three months' RI with a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1-1/2 months like imprisonment. Daran Khan 325/34, IPC Six months' RI with a fine. ...
Lakha Singh and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj101; 1984()WLN788
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. State officers' colossal negligence, indifference, bordering on apathy towards land reform legislations has resulted in filing of 'no return' after pendency of more than three years of this writ petition. The Law Officer fairly and frankly expressed their helplessness, in filing the return, when concerned officers become 'dumb and deaf to the repeated requests to send instructions and record. This Court is not concerned with the 'internal disorder 'exhibited above' but feel handicapped in the absence of production of relevant record and even notification of delegation, if any. With the above tiny preface let me now narrate the case in traditional convention.2. The petitioner in these writ petitions have challenged the order Annex. 1, in both the cases, passed by Tehsildar, Colonisation directing their eviction, imposing penalty and sentence of three months civil imprisonment under . In both the cases the impugned orders state that the petitioners have committed tr...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. B.T. Agrawal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR72(Raj); 1984()WLN339
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal' herein), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the value of his 1/4th share in the house property thrown by him into the common hotchpotch of Hindu undivided family which was includible in his net wealth under Section 4(1A) of the Act?'2. The assessee-respondent is an individual. The valuation date relevant to the assessment year 1975-76 was March 31, 1975. The assessee filed wealth-tax return declaring net wealth of Rs. 1,96,400. He claimed exemption of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (Act No. XXVII of 1957) (which will for the sake of brevity hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of the...
Anant Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN461
S.S. Byas, J.1. By his judgment dated April 26, 1977 the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur convicted the accused Anant Ram Under Sections 304, Part Iand 450, IPC and sentenced him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment on the first and five years' like imprisonmnent on the second count. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused has comeup in appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence.2. Briefly recalled, the fact and circumstances leading to the prosecution and conviction of the accused are that the deceased-victim Smt. Manjula was the wife of PW 1 Gokul Prasad. Gokul Prasad was employed in the Fire-brigade Unit of the Municipal Council, Jodhpur. The accused was also employed there in the same unit. The accused picked up friendship with Gokul Prasad and started visiting his house. Gokul Prasad started treating the accused his younger brother. At the relevent time in June, 1976 Gokul Prasad was living with his wife and children in Pratap Nagar Colony, Jodhpur. On...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rangnath Bangur (Decd. by L. Rs.)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1984
Reported in: [1985]152ITR71(Raj); 1984()WLN331
Mal Lodha, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short the 'Tribunal'), has referred the following question for the decision to this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 82,264 was not includible in the wealth of the assessee in the wealth-tax assessment for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72?'2. The assessee, Shri Rangnath Bangur of Deedwana, during the pendency of the reference died on April 11, 1983, His legal representatives, Shri Shreekumar Bangur and Smt. Kamla Devi Bangur, were brought on record, vide order dated April 17, 1984.3. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. The valuation dates are March 31, 1968, March 31, 1969, March 31, 1970, and March 31, 1971. The assessment to income-tax of the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1967-68 was completed on February 10, 1972. As a result of t...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rahmat Khan Faizukhan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Raj)264; [1985]152ITR676(Raj)
Mal Lodha, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions of law which arise out of its order dated April 22, 1974, for our decision :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of the partnership deed the Tribunal was justified in holding that the partnership existed orally all along with effect from April 1, 1967, and that the partnership had not come into existence only from January 27, 1968, onwards? 2. If the answer to the above question be in the negative, was the Tribunal justified in holding that the firm was entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1968-69 ?' 2. Shri Rahmat Khan is a partner in M/s. New Friends & Co., Dhamani Market, Jaipur. He had 121/2% share in the profit and loss of that firm, for the accounting period corresponding to the assessment year 1968-69 which began on April 1, 1967, an...
Moti Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN680
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a reference made by the Chief Justice, on the request of the learned Single judge of this Court for resolving the controversy about the power of the court to punish the accused for a substantive offence when he has only been charge-shected with the aid of Section 149 IPC and there is no charge of the substantive offence, simpliciter.2. Motilal, the accused in the instant case, was convicted under Section 326, IPC though the charge against him was for offence under Section 326/149 IPC, and there is no charge for offence under Section 326 IPC, simpliciter.3. In the revision petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised objection that the accused petitioner could not have been convicted either by the trial court or the appellate court under Section 326, IPC as there was no separate and independent charge for the substantive offence of Section 326, IPC.4. It was argued that it was not necessary to show the prejudice and reliance was placed on the judgment...
Munilal ShivnaraIn Kothari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1984
Reported in: [1984]149ITR567(Raj); 1984()WLN349
Lodha, J. 1. The learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law to this court, on an application of the assessee : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that the assessment made in the status of an association of persons as against the status of firm shown in the assessee's return was void ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference briefly stated are that for the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee, M/s. Munilal Shivnarain (hereinafter called 'the assessee'), filed a voluntary return declaring income of Rs. 19,867. The assessee also filed an application in Form No. 11, along with the original partnership deed dated July 17, 1969. On a scrutiny, the ITO found that the assessee was not a genuine partnership firm. The grounds on which this finding was arrived at by the ITO are not relevant for our pres...
Sukhdeo Charity Estate Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1984
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Raj)218; [1984]149ITR470(Raj)
Bhatnagar, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, at the instance of M/s. Sukhdeo Charity Trust, Ladnu (hereinafter to be referred as 'the assessee-trust'), has referred the following question to this court under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act of 1961'):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 received by the assessee-trust from Benjamin & Rahama Elias Memorial Trust is liable to be included as part of the income of the assessee-trust under the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Act of 1961 '2. The facts of the case relevant for the purpose of answering the question under reference are as under :One Sukhdeo Sarawagi, before his death in the year 1933, set' apart Rs. 6,08,000 in trust with instructions to the trustees to hold the same in trust for religious and charitable purposes. On January 25, 1963, atrust was constituted under the terms and co...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chemical Limes
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1984
Reported in: [1984]149ITR325(Raj); 1984()WLN388
Lodha, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question for answer to this court: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the learned AAC, cancelling the learned ITO's order dated May 3, 1972, tinder Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference briefly stated are that while making the assessment of the assessee, M/s. Chemical Limes, Jodhpur, for the assessment year 1964-65, the ITO charged interest under Section 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinaftercalled 'the Act'). The assessee thereupon filed an application under Section 154 of the Act for rectifying that order by waiving the interest under Section 139(8) of the Act. That application was, however, rejected on October 3, 1970. The assessee again moved an application under Section 154 of the Act alleging that the earlier application under Section 154 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »