Rajasthan Court July 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.
Durga Madira Sangh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(Raj)266; [1985]153ITR226(Raj)
Bhargava,J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, who referred the following questions of law 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 formation of the firm was not valid and that the object of the agreement was of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of law, namely, the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1956 ? 2. If the answer to the above be in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to registration under Section 185 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?' 2. The applicant (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee ') claimed to be a firm consisting of the following partners :1. Shri Madho Lal Tak. 2. Shri Ram Pratap Tak. 3. Shri Norat Mal Tak. 4. Shri Heera Lal Tak. 5. Shri Ram Lal Tak. 6. Shri Ramdeo Tak,...
Hamira Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)161
S.S. Byas, J.1. By the judgment dated September 20,1977 the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur convicted the accused Hamira Ram under Section 304 Part I, IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 5-1/2 years. The accused has come up in appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that accused Hamiraram used to live with his mother Mst. Madu (aged about 50 years) in a Dhani which he had raised in his field situate in Mauja Bhanukalan P.S. Dechu. Mst. Madu became widow nearly 15 years before the occurence took place. The deceased Pepararo Kumbhar aged about 50 years at the relevant time also used to live with his sons in a Dhani which he had raised in his field situate nearly at a distance of one mile from the Dhani of the accused. It is suggested that Peparam developed illicit relations with Mst. Midu Peparam used to visit the Dhani of accused now and then. In the night between 17th and 18th February, 1977, Peparam went secretly to the...
Tolapuri and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)154
S.S. Byas, J.1. Since both these revisions arise out of one and the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated October 38, 19/8, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. The two accused Tolapuri and Shankergiri were convicted under Section 467/34, IPO and each was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one month's life imprisonment by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore vide his judgment dated July 4, 1977. The accused went in appeal which was partly allowed. Their convictions were maintained but the term of imprisonment was reduced to six months from that of one year. The accused have now come-up in revision to challenge their conviction and sentence.2. Brifly stated, the prosecution case is that PW. 3 Bheekgar Swami owns 1/4 share in Aaraji Khasra No. 57 situate in Mauja Posana district Jalore. He was in possession of his share at all the relevant t...
Champa Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)178
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, filed by the petitioner Champalal, praying that the temporary sanction (Anx.3) made in favour of Banshilal (non-petitioder Na.4), may be quashed and' non-petitioners No. 1 to 3 (State of Rajasthan the Excise Commissioner Rajasthan, Panchawati, Udaipur and the District Excise Officer, Udaipur respectively), may be restrained from proceeding to award a contract to non-petitioner No. 4 and further from taking further steps in the matter of awarding the contract to non-petitioner No. 4. A direction has also been sought against the aforesaid non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 to determine the question of awarding the contract afresh after negotiations with the tenderers including the petitioners or in such other manner as may be considered appropriate, i.e. by fresh tender or auction.2. The petitioner carries on the business of vending country liquor in the name of Champalal and party. State of Rajajthan (non-petitioner...
Johari and ors. Vs. Kirori and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)324
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by Johari and Moolya against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, dated 5-4-1978 whereby he passed the following order:I, therefore, partly accept the revision and while maintaining the preliminary order passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur, on 28-2-19?8, set aside the order of attachment of the land in dispute. However, I think it proper to send the case to the District Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur with a direction to consider the question of emergency after hearing both the parties and looking into all such material as any be produced before him and then to pass appropriate orders with reasons in accordance with law. However, in order to avoid any possibility of any untoward happening pertaining to the law and order situation I farther direct that the attachment of the land in dispute and the arrangement made, if any, for the custody and management thereof shall remain in operation unt...
Aditya Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-1984
Reported in: [1985]156ITR113(Raj); 1984()WLN499
Sidhu, J.1. The petitioner, M/s Aditya Mills Ltd., is engaged in the business of manufacturing cotton and synthetic yarn. M/s. Traders and Miners Ltd. is said to have been working as sole selling agent of those products at the material time. In the return of income filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 1972-73, it claimed a deduction of Rs. 7,80,952 on account of expenses alleged to have been incurred by way of commission paid to the selling agent aforementioned. The petitioner did not, however, disclose the name of M/s. Traders and Miners Ltd. as its selling agent in the return or the documents accompanying it. By his letter (annexure 2), dated April 1], 1974, the Income-tax Officer (ITO) required the petitioner to give particulars, inter alia, of the selling agents and the commission paid to them. The petitioner sent a laconic reply (annexure 3) dated April 23, 1974, in which the required particulars were not furnished; The ITO had, therefore, to summon and record the state...
Rajasthan Iron and Steel Merchants Association (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commerc ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-1984
Reported in: [1987]65STC215(Raj); 1985(1)WLN100
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. On a direction given by this Court, the Board of Revenue has sent the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:Whether entry No. 23 of the Notification No. F. 5(40)F.D. (R & T) 63-XIII dated 2nd March, 1963, under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, covers G.P. and G.C. sheets within the term 'iron and steel' when the petitioner purchases and sells these items in the same form in which it received them from the rolling mills ?2. M/s. Rajasthan Iron and Steel Merchants Association (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a dealer in the business of sale of galvanised plain and corrugated sheets and galvanised wire purchased from M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. or M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. The Commercial Taxes Department was treating such galvanised sheets and wires as 'iron and steel' for sales tax purposes up to 31st December, 1963 and assessing such sales to tax at 2 per cent. The ass...
Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-1984
Reported in: [1984]57STC236(Raj)
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. The Board of Revenue on a direction given by this Court has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the copper wire sold by the assessee is covered by entry 49 of Notification No. F. 5(40) FD/RNT/ 63-13 dated March 2, 1963, or Notification No. F. 6(110) FD/RT/63 dated July 15, 1963 ?2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd., Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), supplied copper wire to the Pay and Accounts Officer, D.G.S.D., New Delhi. The invoice described the goods sold as under :Wire copper hard drawn for telegraphs and telephones conforming to B. ss 174/1951, size 150 Ibs. per mile.3. The assessing authority held that the primary use of the copper wire of the specification sold by the assessee was for the transmission of sound. The assessee could not show that it could be used for the distribution of electric power. The assessing author...
Bhagsingh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)354
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh has convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Sandur Singh (PW. 2) lodged the first Information Report at Police Station, Hanumangarh Town on 7-7-1977 at 12 P.M.It was submitted by him that there was a dispute about the land between the parties. It was alleged that Gurdayal Singh, the father of the accused, was murdered, prior to the occurrence and Bachan Singh, the brother of the informant, was prosecuted in the court. It was furtner alleged that case against the Bachan Singh under Section 302 IPC was pending at the relevant time. With this background, it is alleged that Kapoor Singh and Hajoor Singh were at their field and the father of the complainant went to give them a packet of break-fast. He heard the firing at about 9 A.M. and he ran towards his field and found that nearby the field of Jwala Singh a fire was shot towards his father. His father fel...
Anada Ram and Shanker Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)361
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Deceased Virendra Singh was managing the affairs of truck No. RRQ 44, which was used for transporting the goods from jodhpur to Bombay. Mukansingh was the owner of the truck. He was the cousin of deceased Virendra Singh. Accused Hardaram was the driver of the truck and on February 4, 1978, he left for Bombay with a loaded truck. Deceased Virendrasingh was accompanying him. On 7th February, 1978, Virendra Singh and accused Shankeriya, Anandram reached Bombay and after unloading the goods, they left for Kankroli. On 9th February, 1978, they unloaded the goods at Kankioli J.K. Tyres Factory and, thereafter, reached the Nathdwara and loaded the truck and left for Bombay. It is further stated that the truck passed on 1th February, 1978 from Bornbay-Ahmedabad High-way.2. It is alleged that accused Anandaram was the cleaner of the truck & he was accompanying deceased Virendra and the accused Shankeriya, through-out. On 11th Feb., 1978, Shankeriya unloaded the goods and inform...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »