Rajasthan Court September 1987 Judgments
Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd. (No. 2) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Raj)187; [1989]175ITR72(Raj)
1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee to answer the following questions of law :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding 'that the expenses incurred by the assessee-mills in providing simple meals, breakfast and tea to its customers and suppliers, etc., coming from outside as customary expenses were in the nature of entertainment expenses and hence not allowable in view of Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Rs. 90,000 incurred by the company for obtaining a survey and feasibility report on the polythene plant is capital expenditure and not allowable as a business expenditure ?(3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that surtax liability is not an expenditure allowable as a business expenditure and not a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jai Drinks (P.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Raj)41; [1988]173ITR100(Raj)
1. In respect of the three assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72 relating to the same assessee, a common question of law has been referred at the instance of the Revenue for the decision of this court by drawing up a common statement of case. The common question of law is as under:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the bottles and shells constitute 'plant' within the meaning of Section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and as such, depreciation and development rebate was rightly allowed '2. The assessee, Jai Drinks (P.) Ltd., was manufacturing and selling soft drinks like cocacola, etc. The products of the assessee were supplied for sale in marked bottles. In respect of these assessment years, the assessee claimed depreciation and development rebate on bottles and shells used in bottling the soft drinks on the ground that they constituted 'plant' as defined in Section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961...
Tag this Judgment!Sumer Chand Bhandari Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)620
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. This litigation commenced in this Court more than twenty years back with the filing of a writ petition on March 3, 1967 by appellant Sumer Chand Bhandari, an officer of the Rajasthan Administrative Service, who was then in the junior scale, alleging unequal treatment in the matter of employment and promotion According to the Rules of this Court in existence till recently the writ petition was heard by a Single Judge who dismissed the same by an order dated September 30, 1975. In accordance with the provision contained in section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance providing for an internal appeal, this appeal was then filed in 1975 and is now being disposed of by us. During this period the appellant's grievance has got aggravated at every stage of his service career resulting from his initial grievance that his juniors had been promoted to the senior scale in the Rajasthan Administrative Service before him; and this continued till his retirement from t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.K. Golecha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1987
Reported in: [1988]173ITR423(Raj)
1. This reference at the instance of the Revenue is to answer the following question of law, namely :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that there were reasonable and sufficient cause on account of which the assessee was prevented from riling the return within limitation '2. The relevant assessment year is 1969-70. The assessee was a partner of a firm, M/s. S. Zoraster and Company. The assessee was required to file his return of income for this assessment year on or before September 30, 1969, but he filed it only on December 29, 1970. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer rejected the explanation of the assessee showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the return and imposed penalty of Rs. 7,242 under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed the Income-tax Officer's view and rejected the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1987
Reported in: [1988]173ITR431(Raj)
1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee is to answer the following questions of law, namely :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the addition of Rs. 6,90,051, being the premium realised on the sale of import entitlemants, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1967-68 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the receipt of Rs. 6,90,051 was not of a casual nature ' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1967-68. The assessee is a private limited company, carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of soapstone powder. For the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee filed the return on September 24, 1967, and therein showed a sum of Rs. 7,85,051 as casual income. Exemption from tax was claimed in respect of this amount shown as casual income. The assessee t...
Tag this Judgment!Ferro Concrete Construction (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan State Elect ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN419
Navin Chander Sharma, J.1. Writ Petitioner M/s Ferro Concrete Construction (India) Private Limited (for short, here in after, petitioner company), by this writ petition, accuses the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and its Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil) and the Executive Engineer (Civil), Construction Division No. II, Mahi Hydel Project of distributing state largesse, in the form of giving contract to respondent No. 4 M/s. Dhorajia Construction Company for excavation and slope treatment work of D/S side in Tail Pool and. Tail Pace Channel of Power House-H at Lilwani, Banswara, arbitrarily, unfairly, unreasonably and against public interest. By a Notice No. 13/86-87, dated 23rd March, 1987, published in Rajasthan Patrika on 31st March, 1987, the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Bagidora invited tenders from experienced firms of repute who had executed similar type of work previously for the aforesaid work The petitioner-company, respondent No. 4 and respondent No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)32
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dt 29-9-78 Passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, by which appellant Rameshwarlal was convicted for the offence under Section 304, Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.2 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: The appellant was posted as Forest Guard at Sonva forest out-post on 29-10-1977. When he had gone for strolling in the forest, he found deceased Nana Chand (PW 2), Bhera PW 3) and Dalla (PW 4) cutting wood from the jungle. He abused them and fired shot. Nana sustained injury on the back-side of loin. Nana's companions ran away, In the morning, the appellant took the deceased on his back to the village. He gave Rs. 140/- for his treatment. The deceased was taken to the Hospital, Chittorgarh on 30th November, 1977. Dr. Ravi Bhargava (PW 1), Medical Jurist, examined hi...
Tag this Judgment!Ghure Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)586
Vinod Shankar Dave, J.1. Accused Mahadevi had moved an application before this court under Section 439 Cr. PC for granting bail to her in FIR No. 63/87 for an offence under Section 306 IPC. Diary had been summoned in this case by me on 10-8-1987 which was placed before me on 20-8-1987. I enlarged Accused petitioner Mahadevi on bail inter alia stating as follows:The Investigating Officer has now come to the conclusion according to the Police diary that this is not a case of murder, but of committing suicide by Smt. Munni.2. This fact I recorded after perusing brief prepared by Circle Officer, Dholpur. Last but one paragraph of this brief stated as follows:rQ+rh'k gklyk] c;kukr xokgku uD'kekSdk] ?kVukLFky] QtZ tCrh jk[k gM~Mh o Q+;Z fxjrkjh eqyfteku ls ;g Li'V gks pqdk gS fd eqUuh nsoh dks mldh lkl ,oa ifr }kjk rax ,oa ijs'kku fd;k tkrk Fkk A ftl ls og rax o ijs'kku gks dj dq, es dwn xbZ o [kqn[kq'kh dj yh A3. In this last paragraph it was mentioned that offence under Section 306, 201 an...
Tag this Judgment!Genia and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)576
Milap Chandra, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated 18-7-78 by which he convicted the accused appellants as under: Name of the ConvictionS. No. appellant under Section Sentences of the IPC 1 2 3 4(1) Narayan 147 RI for 1-1/2 years; 148 RI for 2 years; 342 RI for 6 months; 454 RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- in default further RI for 3 months; 495 RI for 4 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default further RI for 6 months;(2) Hema ) 147 RI for 1-1/2 years;(3) Verma)(4) Geoa ) 342 RI for 6 months; 454 RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default further RI for 3 months; 395 RI for 4 years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default further RI for 6 months;(5) Harda 147 RI for 1-1/2 years; 1 2 3 4(6) Bagta 454 RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default further RI for 3 months; 395 RI for 4 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default further RI for 6 months;(7) Lakha) 147 RI for 1-1/2 years.(8) Kesa ) ' ' '(9) Sawa ) ' ' '(10) Kalia) ' ' '2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Suresh Chandra Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(Raj)194; [1988]173ITR407(Raj)
1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the Revenue to answer the following question of law, namely :-- ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer in the status of an individual was bad in law ' 2. For the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee filed returns in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer found that in the earlier years the assessee had been assessed in the status of an individual. Accordingly, the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment of the assessee in the status of an individual. Admittedly, at no point of time before completing the assessment, the Income-tax Officer gave any notice or even an indication to the assessee that his claim for assessment in thestatus of a Hindu undivided family was not likely to be accepted or that he was required to show that he was entitled to an assessment unde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »