Rajasthan Court October 1985 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.
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Shree Automobiles Works
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-06-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN346
Shri Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. By order dated December 22, 1976, this Court directed the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board' here in) to draw a statement of the case and refer the following question for its opinion:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that the words 'tax determined' as appearing in Section 16(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 as it then stood, meant 'the amount of tax that remained to be recovered ?The dealer assessee, in respect of the assessment year 1961-62, was assessed to tax under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. XXIX of 1954) (for short 'the Act') by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, 'A' Ward, Jodhpur (ACTO) on April 28, 1965. The total tax assessed was Rs. 12,343.72. The dealer-assessee had already deposited, prior to assessment order, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as tax. The 'tax due' was Rs. 2343.72. The ACTO imposed penalty under Section 16(1)(c) of ...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Mansarowar Cold Drinks
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-1985
Reported in: [1987]65STC282(Raj); 1985(2)WLN733
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward-I, Circle C, Jodhpur (A.C.T.O.) has filed this revision under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan SalesTax Act (No. 29 of 1954) (for short 'the Act') read with Section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 (No. 20 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act') against the order dated 30th October, 1984, of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board' herein), allowing the revision filed under Section 14(2) of the Act in part holding that the tax amount of Rs. 7,673.68 levied at the rate of 8 per cent on the turnover of Rs. 96,919.85 was not tenable and that it was set aside. The dealer-assessee, at the relevant time was dealing in cold drinks, fruit juice, ice-cream, etc. and supplied them in its restaurant. The period involved is 1st January, 1977 to 31st December, 1978. He was assessed by the assessing authority by its order dated 14th January, 1982. The assessing authority levied tax o...
Gordhan Lal Vs. Panna Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN341
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal in a suit for ejectment based on the ground of personal necessity. The sole tenant appellant Gordhan Lal has died and an application has been made on behalf of Shankerlal, his nephew; Rajendra Kumar s/o Shankerlal and Ambalal s/o Jagannath Tailor to be impleaded in his place. It is alleged that Shankerlal being the real nephew of the deceased, is his heir, Rajendra Kumar s/o Shankerlal was working with the deceased appellant in the suit premises which is a shop and Ambalal s/o Jagannath Tailor was also working with him as his associate in the disputed shop and, therefore, they are entitled to continue the appeal as the right to sue survives to them.2. The application has been opposed on behalf of the respondents.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in respect of this application.4. On the death of Gordhanlal the right to continue the appeal would survive only in favour of a person who can be deemed to be a tenant...
Gopi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)490
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. These two appeals : one by the accused Gopi through jail and the other by the accused Gopi, Pratap and Nanda are directed against the judgment dated March 24, 1975 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh whereby the accused appellant Gopi was convicted of the offence under Sections 302 and 447 IPC and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life on the first count and to 3 months 'rigorous imprisonment on the second count and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo 15 days' rigorous imprisonment. The accused-appellants Pratap and Nanda were convicted of the offences under ss. 325, 324 and 447 IPC and each one of them was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment on the first count; and 4 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo 15 days' rigorous imprisonment on the second count and 3 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fin...
Badri Prasad Om Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1985
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Raj)399; [1987]163ITR440(Raj)
1. Application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated January 31, 1976, passed in R.A. No. 36/JP/1975-76, has been filed before this court by the assessee. Learned Tribunal refused to refer some of the questions prayed for arising out of the appellate order dated May 25, 1975, in Income-tax Appeal No. 122/JP/1974-75.2. The brief facts of the case are that in the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee firm filed its return of income on August 29, 1969, showing a total taxable income of Rs. 50,720.59. During the assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer made some queries and directed the petitioner-assessee to disclose the details and also to show the reasons on which he claims the deduction of the loss incurred out of the income of the firm. Placed in this situation, the assessee filed a revised return for the assessment year 1966-67 on August 25, 1970, showing a total income of Rs. 1,63,370.59. The difference between the original and the revised r...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shree Hari Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Raj)364; [1986]161ITR249(Raj)
P.C. Jain, J.1. In this reference application, the following question of law has been referred 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 expenditureof Rs. 31,108 incurred by the assessee on replacement of tin shed was revenue expenditure and admissible under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm which crushes oil seeds and produces oil, khal, etc. It has its own tin shed factory stores and the boiler situated in the premises was owned by the firm. Daring the accounting year ending on July 22, 1970, corresponding to the assessment year 1971-72, the tin sheds were blown off on account of storm. Consequently, the firm incurred an expenditure of Rs. 31,108 in replacing the roof. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed the aforesaid expenditure as being current repairs and requested deduction...
Kaycee Sons Electronical Engineers Vs. Dr. Smt. Malti Saxena
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN471
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 31-7-1985 passed by Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, deleting Issue No. 6 and rejecting the application of the defendant petitioner under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, here in after referred to as the 'Act'.2. The non petitioner plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant petitioner on the ground of material alteration and nuisance. It has been further alleged that the agreed rent was Rs. 750/- per month.3. In the written statement, the defendant petitioner admitted the tenancy and also admitted that the rent was agreed to be Rs. 750/- per month. In the additional pleas, it was submitted that the rent of Rs. 750/- was in excess. The previous tenant was paying Rs. 425/- per month and the standard rent of the suit premises could not be more than Rs. 425/- per month and therefore, the defendant was liable to pay only a sum of Rs. 425/- p...
Poosa Ram Ghewar Lal and 10 ors. Vs. Hemraj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)479
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. Since these appeals and cross-appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') relate to one and the same accident and since identical questions of law and fact are involved in them, they were heard together and are decided by a common judgment. By the award passed on February 24,1979, the claims tribunal directed the owner, driver and the insurer of the truck RJQ 6739 to pay compensation varying in amounts to the claimants. Some of the claimants are injured persons while the others are heirs and dependents of the deceased-victims. The owner and the driver of the truck have come-up in appeals and contended that they were wrongly called-upon to pay the compensation to the claimants where as the grievance of some of the claimants is that the compensation was quantified too low.2. Briefly, recounted, relevant facts giving rise to these appeals are that bus RJQ 1745 was coming from Jalore to Jodhpur on June 15, 1973. PW 1 Hemraj, PW ...
Harji Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)460
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated November 26, J979 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta by which appellants Harjiram, Rekharam and Birmaram were convicted for the murder of Shivkaran and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC. Appellant Birmaram was also convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC for causing injuries to Narsaram and was sentenced to six months RI for that charge with an order that his substantive sentences on both the counts shall run concurrently.2. Succinctly narrated the prosecution case is as under : There was some dispute about a field between Narsaram (PW 6) and one Magnaram. Deceased Shivkaran was the supporter of Narsaram and the three appellants were supporting the cause of Magnaram. Deceased Shivkaran had given some cloth to tailor Joomarram (PW 6) at village Gachhipura for stitching a shirt for him. On December 6, 1978 Shivkaran went to Gachhipura with Narsaram to bring the shirt from t...
Bishambar Dayal Sriniwas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-03-1985
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Raj)164; [1986]162ITR5(Raj); 1986(2)WLN209
Mehta, J. 1. This reference arises on the request of the assessee.2. The assessee-applicant is a firm. It carries on business. For the year 1970-71, it was granted registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It filed its declaration for continuation of registration in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 184 of the Act in respect of the assessment year 1971-72 on October 8, 1971. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay to the Income-tax Officer. It was submitted by the assessee that the delay was caused due to the wrong impression about the interpretation of the amended Section 184(7) of the Act. It was further submitted that it was a case of a genuine firm of more than 10 years' standing and a slight delay of seven days should be condoned. The Income-tax Officer rejected the prayer of the assessee and declined to condone the delay and assessed the assessee as an unregistered firm. An appeal was preferred by the assessee before ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »