Rajasthan Court October 1989 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.
Associated Stone Industries (Kota) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1989
Reported in: (1990)85CTR(Raj)245; [1992]194ITR401(Raj)
1. In these references made by the Rajasthan Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal') at the instance of the assessee, namely, Messrs. Associated Stone Industries (Kota) Ltd., Ramganjmandi, with regard to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the following questions have been referred to this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,08,003, being conditional subsidy, received from the Rajasthan Government under the subsidised Housing Scheme for industrial workers did not form 'part of the actual cost of the labour colony under Section 43 and, consequently, the assessee-company was not entitled to get deduction for depreciation on the said amount under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the messing expenses of Rs. 14,403 and Rs. 15,58...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aditya Mills
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1989
Reported in: (1990)86CTR(Raj)60; [1990]181ITR990(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This reference has been made at the instance of the Revenue under Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), wherein the following question has been referred for consideration of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 7,500 paid as fees to the Registrar of Companies, Jaipur, for bringing about change in the memorandum and articles of association of the company in relation to increase in its authorised capital is allowable as a revenue expenditure ?'2. This reference relates to the assessment year 1974-75. The authorised capital of the assessee was Rs. 100 lakhs which was increased to Rs. 150 lakhs and, for that purpose, the assessee had to get the memorandum and articles of association amended and a sum of Rs. 7,500 was paid by the assessee to the Registrar of Companies, Jaipur, as filing fee for the said amendment. The assessee claimed d...
NaraIn and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN460
S.S. Byas, J.1. Since these two appeals--one against the conviction and the other against the acquittal--are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota dated 13-10-1987, they were beard together and are decided by a common judgment. In sessions case No. 49/81 on the file of the offences u/ss 148, 436/149, 302/149, [PC. On the conclusion of trial, nine of them viz. Narain, Phool Chand, Shri Narain, Madan Lal, Ram Ratan, Bhagirath, Shriram, Ram Gopal and Badri Lal were convicted and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 302/149 and various terms of imprisonment under the other sections The remaining 16 accused viz. Ram Karan, Bhawani Ram s/o Heera Lal, Bhawani Ram s/o Balram, Kalu, Kesu Ram, Chena Ram. Mangilal s/o Kanwar Lal, Ram Chandra s/o Ram Lal, Ram Chandra s/o Bala, Onkar, Bajranga, Gopal, Shobha Ram, Ram Chandra s/o Mangi Lal, Chaturbhuj and Mangi Lal s/o Nathu were acquitted of the ...
Pankaj and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN375
G.K. Sharma, J.1. Both these bail applications pertain to the same matter and they are disposed by this common order.2. The prosecution story is that Mst. Farjana in between 21 and 22nd August, 1989 at 1-00 a.m. came running before the house of Deep Singh Jhala and met a Constable Saitan Singh. At that time she was under intoxication and she stated to the Constable that she is the resident of Dhaulka (Ahmed-abad) and one Jhala had done wrong with her and she was going to the house of Pankaj. She was taken to the Police Station and in the morning she was produced before the SHO. When she came in senses she gave a report alleging that by the night train on 21-8-1989 she arrived at Abu Road from Ahmedabad and came to taxi-stand to fetch a taxi for going to Mount Abu where she met one boy named Pankaj. She was in need of some money. Pankaj told her to accompany him and he took her on a motor-cycle to Gandhi Nagar Basti Another boy Kamal also arrived there. All three remained in the room fo...
Durga Prasad Vs. Radhey Shyam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj57; 1990(1)WLN171
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J. 1. Petitioner preferred this revision petition being aggrieved with the order dated 2nd August, 1984 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu. Suit was instituted for the recovery of the rent, interest and ejectment etc. in the Court of learned CivilJudge, Jhunjhunu. The valuation of civil suit was assessed as Rs.8,727/- on account of arrears and interest. The suit was also valued for the purpose of ejectment and the valuation was fixed as Rs. 1,608/-. Thus, the total i valuation was Rs. 10,335/- and the Court fee was also paid on the same amount. An application was moved for the amendment of the plaint and it was mentioned in that application that the petitioner wants to give away the relief relating to the rent for the period 1st March, 1975 to 31st October, 1975. Petitioner also gave away the relief of interest. Thus, the valuation of the suit was reduced by abandoning/giving-up the relief relating to rent and interest referred above. An application under Ord...
Bajaj Industries Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: [1990]78STC214(Raj)
S. N. Bhargava, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the non-petitioners refusing to grant the petitioner exemption certificate or deferment certificate.2. The Government of Rajasthan issued a notification on May 23, 1987 (annexure A) in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1954') notifying the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme of 1987') as the State Government was satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest so to do. By this notification, the State Government exempted the industrial units from payment of tax on the sales of the goods manufactured by them within the State in the manner and to the extent provided by the Scheme of 1987. The Government of Rajasthan issued another notification on September 26, 1987, known as the Sales Tax Deferment Scheme for Industries, 1987 (hereinafter ...
Mangi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN662
V.S. Dave, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, dated 18th Sept., 1981, whereby he convicted the accused-appellant for offence Under Section 326 and 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment for the aforesaid offences respectively. Both the sentence were directed to run concurrently.2. One Poora (PW 1) injured-complainant lodged an FIR at the police station, Piwada at 8.00 p.m. on 10th September, 1978 alleging that his daughter Geeta was married to the accused-appellant, Mangilal about a decade earlier but after the marriage the accused appellant was ill treating her and giving casual beating also. It was alleged that due to the harassment she voluntarily left her husband's house and came to the house of the complainant father about 20 days prior to the date of occurrence. On the date of occurrence, i.e. on 10t...
Bal Chand Vs. Devi Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN703
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision and arises under the the following circumstances: Respondent No. 1 Devisingh had filed a suit for ejectment against respondent No. 2 Shyamsunder in respect of the property described in para 1 of the plaint, a copy of which is on the record. In that suit, it was, inter-alia, pleaded that defendant Shyam Sunder had sub-let the premises in question to one Mohanlal and Mohanlal in his turn had sub-let a part of the premises to the present petitioner Balchand. Balchand was not impleaded as a party to that suit. Although, no written statement was filed by defendant Shyamsunder in that suit, be appeared before the court through his counsel Shri Akal Raj and contested the suit. That suit was decreed against Shyamsunder by judgment dated 29-11-78. Plaintiff Devisingh, than, applied for the execution of the decree and in the execution proceedings, Mohanlal and Gangaram resisted the delivery of the possession and Gangaram also filed a civil for perm...
Phool Mohammed Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN621
Miss Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Though the case was put up for admission to day but in view of the submission of Mr. B.N. Kalla that the case is covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shashikant v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No 2194 of 1984 decided on March 16, 1989 the case may be heard or final disposal to day.3. Mr. Dave did not object to the arguments of the case being heard for final disposal today.4. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the order Annex. 9 by which the concerned authority declined to give the petitioner benefit Under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying While in Service Rules, 1975(for short 'the Rules' here in after) on the ground that the father on the petitioner had did on 2-9-1972.5. The question about the legality of the date September 2, 1972 in the rules came for consideration before the Division Bench (of which I was a part...