Rajasthan Court April 1988 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.
Rasoolji Buxji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(Raj)178; [1988]174ITR328(Raj); [1988]40TAXMAN309(Raj)
J. S. VERMA C.J. - This order shall dispose of all the above nine references which relate to the same assessee. In I.T. References Nos. 2 to 9 of 1980 made by the Tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a set of common questions of law arising out of the Tribunals common order relating to the assessment years 1955-56 to 1961-62 and 1964-65 have been referred on the basis of a common statement of case drawn up by the Tribunal. I.T. Reference No. 38 of 1986 is also in respect of the same assessee and relates to the very same assessment years but is a result of a direction of this court under sub-section (2) of section 256 of the Act to refer a common question of law said to arise out of the same order of the Tribunal which is treated as not covered by the questions already referred by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Act. This question also has to be answered on the same facts.The common question of law in I.T. References Nos. 2 to 9 of 1980 ref...
Rasoolji Buxji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN182
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. This order shall dispose of all the above nine references which relate to the same assessee. In References Nos. 2 of 1980 to 9 of 1980 made by the Tribunal under Sub-section (1) of Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 a set of common questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's common order relating to assessment years 1955-56 to 1961-62 and 1964-65 have been referred on the basis of a common statement of case drawn up by the Tribunal. I.T. Reference No. 38 of 1986 is also,in respect of the same assessee and relates to the very same assessment years but is a result of direction of this Court under Sub-section (2) of Section 256 of the Act to refer a common question of law said to arise out of the same order of the Tribunal which is treated as not covered by the questions already referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Act. This question also had to be answered on the same facts.2. The common question of law in I.T. References Nos. 2/80 to ...
Birbal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN114
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 18th December, 1984, passed by the Sessions Judge. Tonk, convicting and sentencing the accused appellants as under:Name of accuse d Offence Under PunishmentAll accused persons Section 148, I.P.C. 3 years' RI and a fine' of 100/-, and in default1 month's RI;' 395/397 or 7 years' RI;396/397, I.P.C.' 302 or Life imprisonment and302/149, a fine of Rs. 200/, and inI.P.C. default, 2 months' RI;' 396 or Life imprisonment and396/149, a fine of Rs. 200/-, and inI.P.C. default, 2 months' RI;397, I.P.C. 7 years' RI;Birbal, Ramnarayan, 460, I.P.C. 10 years' RI and a fine ofDhari, Binda alias Fulgan Rs. 200/-, and in default,2 months' RI.All the substantive sentences awarded to the accused-appellants, were, how ever, ordered to run concurrently.2. On 7th April, 1984, on Mannalal Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bagrwa submitted a written-report at PS-Piplu; to the effect that some miscreants had committed dacoity at the ho...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kailash ChandrA.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1988
Reported in: [1988]174ITR326(Raj)
J. S. VERMA C.J. - 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 correct in law in holding that on the death of Shri Prithviraj (partner), there was dissolution of the firm and the assessments should have been made by the Income-tax Officer ?'The relevant assessment year is 1976-77. The assessee-firm consisted of five partners, one of whom, Prithviraj, died on June 26, 1975. Thereafter, the remaining four partners took in the widow of Prithviraj in that partnership and constituted a new partnership by a partnership deed dated July 22, 1975. The assessee filed two returns, one for the period up to the death of Prithviraj and the other for the period subsequent to that date. The Income-tax Officer took the view that it was a case merely of a change in the constitution of the firm governed by section 187 of the...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Adarsh Gram Trust
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR75(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This reference at the instance of the Revenue under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, 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 holding that the net wealth of the Adarsh Gram Trust is exempt under Section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in view of the objects mentioned in the Notification No. 11 dated January 4, 1949 ?'The relevant assessment years are 1970-71 and 1971-72, in respect of which this common question of law has been referred for decision. In respect of the same assessee for another year of assessment, the same question was referred for decision by this court on the same facts. A Division Bench of this court in D. B. Civil Wealth-tax Reference No. 53 of 1972, decided on December 3, 1984--CIT v. Adarsh Gram Trust , answered the question in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Following that decision, this reference a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhuralal Chittarmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1988
Reported in: [1988]172ITR558(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1)of the Income-tax Act, 1961, 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 holding that no charge was levied by the Income-tax Officer for default under Section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in cancelling the penalty consequently ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1970-71. The assessee was required to file the return of its income for the assessment year 1970-71 on or before June 30, 1970. It did not file any return under the bona fide impression that no return was required to be filed since it had suffered loss in that year. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 139(2) of the Act, which was served on the assessee on January 14, 1971, requiring the assessee to file its return of income on or before February 13, 1971, The assessee filed the return on July 23, 1971, declaring a loss o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.M. Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1988
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(Raj)55; [1988]172ITR497(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue is to answer the following question; namely:'Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the self-acquired property of a father dying intestate after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act is to be treated as ancestral property in the hands of the son ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1978-79. The assessee acquired the property in dispute from his father who died in 1976. The assessee constituted a Hindu undivided family at the time of the death of his father. The question arose about the nature of the property and whether this property was to be treated as ancestral in his hands or not. The Income-tax Officer rejected the assessee's contention that the property was ancestral in the hands of the assessee. The Income-tax Officer assessed the property and the income of the assessee in his status as individual and not as Hindu undivided family. The...
Parasmal Kanaji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1988
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(Raj)7; [1988]172ITR568(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the assessee, 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 transactions relating to purchases and sales of 1,765 tins of oil yielding a profit of Rs. 16,633 had been carried out by the assessee himself in the name of his son, Shri Sukhraj Mehta, and in upholding the assessment of Rs. 16,633 in the hands of the assessee ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1976-77. The assessee, Parasmal Kanaji, is a selling agent of M/s. Shri Radha Krishna Oil Mill, Sukhraj Mehta is the son of the assessee, Parasmal Kanaji. During the relevant period, four transactions of purchase and sale of oil were made in which the assessee, Parasmal Kanaji, was involved and they were shown to be made in the name of his son, Sukhraj Mehta. The profit that accrued from these transactions amounted to Rs....
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1618; 1988(2)WLN285; 1988WLN(UC)302
S.N. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a criminal revision petition against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota, dismissing the appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Kota, convicting the appellant Under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act for a period of 4 months and Rs. 200/- fine, in default of payment of fine, one month's R.I.2. This revision petition came up for arguments before the learned single Judge, who has referred this revision to larger bench to decide the following question : ---Whether the report dated 23rd June, 1979 can be considered sufficient to hold that the article contained in the packet was Opium? This question has been referred to us because there is conflict of views in the two judgments of this Court in Mana Ram v. State 1981 Raj LW 583 : 1982 Cri LJ 696 and S.B. Criminal Rev. No. 24/80 Bajrang Lal v. State decided on 7-4-1986.3. We had issued a general notice to all the Advocates to appear and address the...
Padam Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)294
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is an application under Section 438 Cr.PC for issuing directions in a matter where a notice under Section 108 of Central Excise and Customs Act has been issued against him. His apprehension is that moment he goes to the custom official for interrogation in pursuance of the notice under Section 108 of the Act he shall be detained in custody even when no incriminating article has been found in a search made at his residence and the house of Rem Kumar was sealed and taken into custody. It is contended that merely because co-accused has stated about the involvement of the accused, he cannot be detained else there is no evidence against the accused. Reliance has been placed on an order of this Court by Hon'ble MB. Sharma, J., in SB. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 631 of 1987 Sri Ram Soni v. State of Rajasthan where anticipatory bail has granted by the learned Judge.2. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, I hereby direct that in the event of arrest of ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »