Rajasthan Court April 1986 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.
Abhay Kumar and Co., Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Raj)188; [1987]164ITR148(Raj); [1986]63STC203(Raj)
A.K. Mathur, J. 1. In all this batch of writ petitions, a common question of law and fact has been raised. Therefore, they are disposed of by a single order. 2. In these writ petitions, principal submissions have been made, one regarding the validity of Section 44AB and Section 271B of the Income-tax Act and second, regarding interpretation of 44AB and 271B of the Income-tax Act. Sections 44AB and 271B were introduced by the Finance Act of 1984, which read as under : '44AB. Every person,-- (a) carrying on business shall, if his total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in business exceed or exceeds forty lakh rupees in any previous year or years relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1985, or any subsequent assessment year; or (b) carrying on profession shall, if his gross receipts in profession exceed ten lakh rupees in any previous year or years relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1985, or any subsequen...
Syed WalliuddIn and anr. Vs. Mst. Rafiqa Bibi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN696
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. This appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th January, 1964, passed by the learned District Judge, Ajmer in Civil First Appeal No 294 of 1960, affirming the judgment and decree dated 23rd August, 1960 passed by the learned Addl. Munsif No. 1, Ajmer City, Ajmer in Civil suit No 140 of 1956(183/1958).2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs appellants filed a suit for rent and eviction of the suit premises against the defendant respondents on the basis of a registered leave deed alleged to have been executed by the defendant in his favour on 2nd April, 1947. The suit was contested only by respondent No. 1 and the suit proceeded exparte against the another respondent. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that he was a landlord of the property No. AMC 11/133 situated at Imambada Mohalla, Khadiman Ajmer and that defendants Mst. Rafika Bibi & Zainul Salbeem are his tenants w.e.f. 29...
Angrej Singh S/O Hakam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)165
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.2. This bail application is in a case under Section 3/4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (here in after referred to as 'the Act). A report was lodged at Police Station, Anoopgarh on June 5, 1985 against the petitioner by S.H.O. Sita Ram, wherein certain allegations were levelled against various persons, which I will refrain from mentioning in the case for various reasons, except that there was alleged to be an encounter with those persons. In pursuance of the investigation of this FIR, the accused-petitioner was arrested and was charge sheeted. The charge against the petitioner was that he had brought a Granthi from Gurdwara in Chak 11-A of Police Station, Hanumangarh, who used to incite people. The accused was forwarded for trial before the Designated Court, Ajmer for offence under Section 3/4 of the Act. The petitioner moved a bail ap...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan State Warehousing ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN201
M.C. Jain, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has made this reference on Reference Applications Nos. 85 and 86/JP/1974-75, arising out of ITA Nos. 719 and 720/JP/1972-73, in respect of the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, on the following questions of law :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee corporation was an authority constituted under any law for the marketing of commodities ; and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income of the corporation from letting of godowns and/or warehousing was exempt from tax under Section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ' 2. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the assessee is not entitled to exemption under Section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, therefore he added the income from letting of godowns and/or warehouses, in respect of the assessment years ...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan State Warehousing ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1986
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(Raj)3; [1987]167ITR694(Raj)
M. C. JAIN J. - The Income-tax Appellate, Jaipur Bench, has made this reference on Reference Applications Nos. 85 and 86/JP/1974-75, arising out of ITA Nos. 719 and 720/JP/1972-73, in respect of the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, on the following questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee corporation was an authority constituted under any law for the marketing of commodities; and2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income of the corporation from letting of godowns and/or warehousing was exempt from tax under section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.'The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the assessee is not entitled to exemption under section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, therefore, he added the income from letting of godowns and/or warehouses, in respect of the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Son Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN477
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated October 11, 1975 where by the learned lower court has set aside the order of the Collector, Jodhpur dated September 3, 1974 by which the Collector, Jodhpur ordered for the confiscation of 14 bags of wheat belonging to respondent Son Singh.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that, the Government of Rajasthan promulgated the Rajasthan Wheat (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973 (here in after referred to as the 'Order') which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extraordinary) dated March 31, 1973 where in it was provided that after 30th June of each year, no producer shall hold stocks of wheat in quantity exceeding 20 quintals at any time. This Order was later amended on May 28, 1973 and it was pro- vided that no producer will hold the stocks of wheat in quantity exceeding 20 quintals after 31st May of each year. It is alleged that o...
Naseem Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)669
1. A convict, Naseem, has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kota, where by he has been convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 302, IPC -- Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- in default,6 months RI;Under Section 447, IPC -- Fine Rs. 100/- in default 1 month's RI.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that, on September 9, 1976 at about 9.47 p.m. Abdul Gani s/o Rahmatullah lodged a report at police station, Gumanpura alleging therein that at about 9.00 p.m. his son Abdul Rasheed came from his shop and was sitting on the roof of his house with his tenant. At that time, the ladies of both the houses were quarrelling with each other. Ibrahim asked Rahamatullah to settle the account and make the payment. When Abdul Rashid told Ibrahim that the accounts cannot be settled like this, it is said that at that time, Naseem, Shafiq, Bhanwaria, Ghasi also came on the roof of their house. Naseem, Shafiq, Bhanwaria, caught hold of him and Naseem inflicted ...
Prakash Chand Kasliwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ598; 1986(1)WLN652
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. The petitioner carried on business of the handicrafts and jewellery at Mirza Ismail Road, Jaipur in the name of 'Gem Palace', a partnership concern, till 15-11-76. On 20th and 21st Nov., 1974 a search was conducted by the I.-T.O. at the business premises of Gem Palace as well as at the residence of the petitioner and a number of documents were also seized from the residence of the petitioner (and) were taken over, by the authorities of the Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 in short 'FERA') from the L-T.O. on the ground that the seized documents revealed violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.2. The case of the petitioner further is that he was arrested on 28-11-74 but on that very day he was admitted to bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur in the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. Thereafter the petitioner appeared on several dates before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate from 3-1-75 to 19-5-76 but no complaint or charg...
Santa Singh Vs. Darbara Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN98
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. This Civil second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Ganganagar dated 25-5-74 where by he has set aside the judgment of the trial court and has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for sepecific performance of contract with the direction that the plaintiff-vendee is entitled to receive back Rs. 5500/- paid by him to defendant No. 1 Gurdayal Singh. The costs have been ordered to be easy.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that defendant No. 1 Gurdayal Singh entered into an agreement to sell 15 bighas of his land to the plaintiff Santasingh situated in chak 4 SDS for a sum of Rs. 8250/-. A written agreement to that effect was executed by defendent No. 1 and was later got registered. This land has been allotted to the defendant No. 1 as a non-claimant displaced person. Some of the instalments were still outstanding against defendant No. 1 and so it was agreed between the ...
Ganpat Singh Vs. Kailash Shanker and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN343
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115, Cr.PC is directed against the order dated 12th December, 1980, passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 1 of 1980, by which an application for possession filed by the decree-holder purchaser was held to be maintainable by applying Article 136 of the Limitation Act, in preference to Article 134 of the Limitation.2. The material facts lie in a narrow compass and may be stated thus : Applicant Kailash Shankar is a decree-holder. Chouth Mai and Kailash Shankar plaintiffs who were father and sons obtained a preliminary decree in a suit for sale of mortgaged property situated in Chowkri Ghat Darwaza, Kothi, Mani Ramji, Jaipur City, against defendants Ganpat Singh, Bharat Singh, Smt. Prakash Kanwar and Smt. Damma Kanwar alias Sint. Abbey Kanwar--A preliminary decree was passed on 1st August, 1974 for a sum of Rs. 37,447.00 only. The decree-holder aplied for the sale of mortgaged property ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »