Rajasthan Court July 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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Tulsi Das Mahant
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1985
Reported in: [1986]160ITR325(Raj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ('the Tribunal' herein), has referred the following question for the decision of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest of the appellant in the property was ancestral and as such constituted Hindu undivided family property in his hands ?'2. The Mahantship was originally conferred on the ancestors of the assessee-respondent by Her Highness the Rajmata of Jodhpur. The relevant part of the grant reads as under :* * * *3. The English translation of the material portion of the grant is as under:'Her Highness the Rajmata, the third 'Bhatiyaniji' pays her respects to Shri Mahant Motiramji and declares that there is a temple of Shri Raghunathji constructed by me on Gulabsagar. The sewa, supervision and control of the said temple has been gifted to you by me by my free will. You and your disciples, sons, grandsons, great grandsons would do 'Sewa' to...
Harnand Rai Ramanand Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Raj)56; [1986]159ITR988(Raj); 1985(1)WLN742
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This reference raises an important question of law with respect to interpretation of the words ' every month' used in Section 18(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (No. XXVII of 1957), (for short 'the Act')'. We may also state that the same words have been used in Section 271(t)(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The provisions of Sections 18(1)(i) are in pari materia with Section 271(1)(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The petitioner-assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The assessment year involved is 1973-74. The assessee was required to file a return of wealth by August 15, 1973. The return was despatched by the assessee by registered post on September 12, 1973. It was received by the Wealth-tax Officer on September 15, 1973. The Wealth-tax Officer was of the view that there was a delay of 31 days (one month) in filing the return. He issued a show-cause notice to the assessee regarding penalty. He held in his order dated December 5, 1975, that the assessee w...
Eklingji Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1985
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Raj)40; [1986]158ITR810(Raj); 1985(2)WLN366
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred an important question of law which has arisen out of its common order dated September 9, 1977, relating to the four assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74,2. The controversy is whether the amounts received by the assessed in the previous years relating to the aforesaid assessment years by way of compensation for the jagir lands of the assessee resumed by the State are capital receipt or revenue receipt.3. The assessee, Shri Eklingji Trust, Udaipur, is a religious trust. It was established by a deed of trust dated April 12, 1955. The trust is in respect of various temples and funds. There were certain jagir lands of the various temples and the funds comprising the trust. They (jagir lands) were resumed by the State of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (Act No. VI of 1952) (for short 'the Act'). On account of the r...
Ahmed Bux Alias Ahmed Khan Vs. Bhim Raj Modilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN377
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's revision-petition directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Rajsamand dated Oct. 20, 1984, by which his application filed under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Scheduled Debtors (Liquidation of Indebtedness) Act, 1976 (here in after to be referred as 'the Act') was dismissed.2. Briefly recounted, the relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the decree-holder M/s Bhimraj Modilal obtained a money decree for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- against the judgment-debtor Ahmed Khan on October 4, 1983. The decree-holder submitted an application on July 10, 1984 in the court below for execution of the decree. The judgment-debtor submitted an application under Section 4 of the Act on October 20, 1984 stating therein that he was a Scheduled debtor being a marginal farmer and as such the decretal debt be discharged. The learned Additional District Judge summarily dismissed this application taking the view that thi...
Shyam Swaroop Alias Shyam and 5 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1985
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)65
1. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge (1), Baran under his judgment dated 31-8-1981 convicted accused Sheopal Under Section 302 and 148, IPC. Under the former count, the accused Sheopal has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. Under the latter count, he has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, or in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment of two months. The other accused-appellants Shyam Sarup, Ram Sarup, Ram Gopal, Badri Lal and Birdhi Lal have been convicted Under Sections 147 and 302/149, IPC and each of them has been sentenced to one year's rigourous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-, or in default to one month's rigorous imprisonment Under Section 147, IPC and Under Section 302/149, IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-, or in default of payment of fine to further two months rigorous imprison...
Karamveer Singh S/O Harphool Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)663
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. Accused appellant Karamveer Singh has filed this appeal against his conviction under Sections 302, 392 and 201, IPC. On the first count, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh has sentenced the accused appellant to an imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 201/-and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. On the second count, the accused appellant has been sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 201/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment. Under the third and on the last count, the accused has been sentenced to two year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 101/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. All the substantive sentences of the accused appellant have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts of the case are that on October 31, 1979, a report ...
Kalu Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)659
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. The two accused appellants Kalu Lal and Gulab Chand have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, under Section 302/34 and 307/34 IPC, in the judgment dated July 30, 1981, in the former count, each of accused has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo for six months rigorous imprisonment and in the later count each has been sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences under both the counts have been ordered to run concurrently.2. In brief the facts of the case are that on Sept. 7, 1980, at about 11 a.m. Smt. Pana Bai and Smt. Gulab Bai were going through the fields of Guwart in village Churelia and it is alleged that both the accused persons followed them for about a mile and thereafter told them as to whether they ...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Executive Engineer, Irrigation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1985
Reported in: [1986]62STC176(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This Court vide its order dated 21st October, 1976, passed in D. B. Sales Tax Case No. 183 of 1974 (Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle B, Udaipur v. Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Kankroli) directed the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board' herein), to state the case and refer the following question of law for opinion under Section 15(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954) ('the Act' herein):Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, supply of cement bags by the Executive Engineer to the contractor for price for utilisation in the execution of contract constituted sale and this turnover attracted levy of tax 2. The Board has accordingly submitted the statement of the case and referred the aforesaid question. During the pendency of this reference the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 (No. 20 of 1984) ('the Amendment Act' herein), was promulgated. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Amendment Act provided that the Am...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Makrana Marbles
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1985
Reported in: [1986]62STC339(Raj); 1985(2)WLN41
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a petition under Section 15(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954) (for short 'the Act'), read with Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Sales Tax Act'), for directing the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan (in short 'the Board') to state the case and refer the question of law arising out of its order dated 25th October, 1978, passed in special appeal, which it refused to do by its order dated 20th April, 1979. The question proposed by the A. C. T. O. is as under :Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 although the goods imported on the strength of C forms for the purpose of use in manufacture was utilised in job-work ?2. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that in view of the provisions contained in Section 13(10) of the Rajasthan Sales...
Bhanwar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)345
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Appellant Bhanwarlal was tried for the offence under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife Smt. Dhapi, by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. By the judgment dated January 30, 1980, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Bhanwarlal and his wife Smt. Dhapi were very often quarrelling because of the former not earning anything and extracting money from the latter. The appellant is said to be addicted to the intoxication and gambling. On July 24, 1979 on hearing the shrieks of Smt. Dhapi, Smt. Badami (PW 1) and Smt. Champa (PW 7) rushed to her house. They saw the accused inflicting blows with scissors to Smt. Dhapi in the kitchen. They raised the cry. On hearing the cries of those two ladies, Ramdayal (PW 8) also went to the house of the appellant. He saw the appellant causing injuries with scissors to his wife Smt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »