Rajasthan Court August 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pali Dyeing Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR636(Raj); 1988(2)WLN301
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue to answer the following questions of law, viz. :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expression 'in the course of any proceedings' occurring in Section 271(1) does not refer to the penalty appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the penalty order of the Income-tax Officer ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot initiate penalty proceedings under Clause (b) of Section 251(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the course of appeal proceedings, filed against a penalty order, passed under Section 271(1)(a) by the Income-tax Officer ?'2. The relevant assessment years are 1974-75 and 1975-76. The Income-tax Officer imposed penalties und...
Nana Lal Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)123
N.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. On September 15, 1986 the defendant No. 2 was allowed to adduce evidence and the case was fixed for December 17, 1986. On that date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to January 31, 1987. On this date the counsel for the defendant No. 2 sought an adjournment which was granted as the counsel for the plaintiffs had no objection to it. On February 28, 1987, Ganpatlal witness was present. For this date, the defendant had summoned three witnesses, namely, Geru, Ganpatlal and Sardar Singh. Sardar Singh was served personally, while Geru was not served as he was not found in village Gadri and had gone out of the village. On this date the counsel for the plaintiff sought an adjournment on the ground that there was some marriage in his family. Ganpatlal was bound for the next date and the case was adjourned to March 28, 1987. On this date Ganpatlal did not appear. It appears that an application had been sent b...
Atamjit Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)186a
V.S. Dave, J.1. This Court has said in several cases that while passing orders for delivery of the vehicle particularly in the accident cases where there is no question of confiscation of the vehicle the Court should not place such onerous conditions which would make the delivery almost impossible The learned Magistrate has directed that the petitioner should furnish two Bank Guarantees in the sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs each which would mean that the petitioner should first have this much amount to deposit in the Bank for obtaining Bank Guarantee, which in other words would mean frustrating the very purpose of the order. Thus, keeping in view the decision of this court in 1987 RCC 332 and 1985 RLR 376, I deem it proper to modify the order consequently the petition is allowed, the order is modified to the extent that the vehicle shall be released on an undertaking given by the person authorised to do so and giving a surety in the amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs to the satisfaction of the trial court an...
Nand Kishore Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)266
Satish Chandra Agarwal, J.1. In this writ petition, the petioner is seeking to challenge the proceedings that have been initiated against him under the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (here in after referred to as the Act) and the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 1966 (here in after referred to as the Rules) with regard to the recovery of certain amounts said to have been obtained by the petitioner as loan. A notice dated 25th January, 1979, was issued to the petitioner under Section 117 of the Act. Another similar notice was issued under Section 117 of the Act on 13th March, 1984. The said notice was followed by an order dated 18th April 1984, passed under Section 117 of the Act. Thereafter an order dated 13th March, 1987, was passed under Section 118(1)(c) of the Act, whereby proceedings were initiated for execution of the decree for recovery of Rs. 10,048/-by attachment of the property of the petitioner. In pursuance of the order, the tractor of t...
Roland Markas Goonthar S/O Helmet Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)453
D.L. Mehta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24th May, 1988.2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Ajmer, convicted the present appellant under Section 20B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (here in after referred to as 'the Act').3. Prosecution story unfolded during the trial is that 160 grams of Charas was recovered from the person of the present appellant. Hanuman Singh, PW 8 received the information that a foreigner is selling the drugs and he is sitting near by the Gujaron-ka-Shamsan. He proceeded with the Police party consisting of PW 2 Guman Singh, PW 3 Jagdish Prasad, PW 4 Mooldan PW 5 Jagdish Prasad son of Radha Kishan, PW 6 Banshidhar and PW 7 Madan Singh. It is alleged that tearch of the present appellant was taken in the presence of Gurcharan Singh, PW 1. Seizure memo Ex.P 1 was prepared on the spot and the accused-appellant was arrested. The First Information Report of the occurrence was lodged at the Police Station just wit...
Rajvir Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1988
Reported in: [1990]186ITR144(Raj); 1988(2)WLN588
M. Kapoor, J. 1. For the year 1982-83, the petitioners submitted their income-tax return late by two years and two months. This return was submitted after they had received a notice from the Income-tax Officer. However, the tax was assessed, appeals were preferred and tax due has been deposited in instalments, the last instalment having been deposited in February, 1988. In March, 1988, a complaint under Section 276CC read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was made before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, and on this complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed that non-bailable warrants be issued for the production of the petitioners. The petitioners preferred an application under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, and he directed that the petitioners should appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, and apply for grant of bail and prior notice be given to...
H.H. Birad Kanwar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR30(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,namely :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of law, the allowance in question received by the assessee was wrong application of the privy purse received by the Ruler, Maharana Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of law, the payment of such allowance was not expenditure in the hands of the erstwhile Ruler, Sri Bhagwat Singhji, and that such allowance is expense of Maharana Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of law, the allowance in question received by the assessee could be termed as income of the assessee ?4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of law, the said all...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Shanker NamkIn Bhandar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC252(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984. The following two questions arise for consideration in this revision :1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled for exemption under Notification No. F. 5(31)FD/CT/ 72-16 dated 28th July, 1972 although he has employed servants for preparation of namkins, etc.2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the fried and salted groundnut remains the same commodity, i.e., oil-seed.2. The non-applicant, M/s. Shanker Namkin Bhandar (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a partnership firm and owns a Namkin Bhandar. By notification dated 28th July, 1972, issued in pursuance of the third proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act the State Government prescribed that for the purpose of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 the limit ...
Bashir Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)369
S.S. Byas, J.1. By his judgment dated February 26, 1986, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg convicted accused Bashir under Sections 395 and 397 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment on each count. The accused has come up in appeal and challenges his conviction.2. Stated in short, the prosecution case is that the dacoity took place in the houses of Pyare and Pooran Kumar in village Dabra, Police Station Pahadi, district-Bharatpur in the early hours on 2810-1984. It is alleged that the members of the family were sleeping in the different Kothas in that night. At about 3 or 3.30 a.m 10 or 12 miscreants intruded into the house armed with Guns, Pistols and Lathis. They had also torches with them PW 9 Pyare woke up, raised cries and called his brother Phusi for help. His brother Phusi came from the other Kotha and tried to face the miscreants. One of the miscreants f...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Rajendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR154(Raj)
1. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, to answer the following question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was justified in law in holding that, the value of various items ofdrawings, paintings, manuscripts, etc., would be 'exempt under Section5(1)(xii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in the case of the assessee, ignoringthe fact that in the accounting periods relevant to the income-tax assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, the assessee had, in fact, sold somepaintings, etc., and the further fact that the department has not acceptedthe Tribunal's earlier decision dated March 13, 1975, for the two yearsaforesaid ?'2. The relevant assessment years are 1962-63, 1963-64, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1977-78. In respect of the same assessee, the same question was referred to this court for its decision r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »