Rajasthan Court November 1990 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.
Smt. Patasi Bai and ors. Vs. Smt. Baburi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN407
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated July 30,1990, passed by the Assistant Collector cum Executive Magistrate, Makrana, by which the learned Executive Magistrate drew a preliminary order and also attached the property. The learned Executive Magistrate also issued notices to the parties to appear before him on August 22, 1990 and to file objections with respect to the order of attachment. The learned Magistrate, also, issued notice directing the parties to file their claim showing their possession over the property in question.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.3. The learned Magistrate has issued notices to the parties to file their objection, but the petitioners, instead of filing their objections, before the learned Executive Magistrate, filed this miscellaneous petition. When the notices have been issued, directing the parties to file their objection, if any, then it wou...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mali Ram Pooran Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR322(Raj)
I.S. Israni, J. 1. This reference application has been filed under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan.2. It is submitted by Shri V.K. Singhal, learned counsel, that the assessee-firm is dealing in the business of precious, semi-precious, rough stones and gold and silver articles including export and import of rough and precious stones. The assessee claimed deduction under the Explanation to Sub-section (1A) of Section 35B. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee did not fulfil the conditions laid down in Sub-section (1A). An appeal was preferred against this order which was allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the basis of other judgments and not on the basis of facts of the assessee's case. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a second appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal upheld the order of the appellate authority. It is contended by learned counsel that the assessee-firm is not a small sc...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Girdhari Lal Saraf
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: (1991)91CTR(Raj)225; [1991]190ITR264(Raj)
Inder Sen Israni, J. 1. This reference application under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, has been filed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Jaipur.2. It is submitted by Shri V. K. Singhal, learned counsel, that the respondent-assessee is holding some shares of Messrs. Premnath Motors (Rajas-than) Pvt. Ltd. and Messrs. Saraf Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., which are not quoted. The value of the share in the case of Messrs. Saraf Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. was taken on the basis of the balance-sheet and in the case of Messrs. Premnath Motors (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd., the face value was taken as the break-up value. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax who has held that the profit earning method will be the appropriate method in the case of Messrs. Premnath Motors (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd. and accepted the appeal. The petitioner submitted an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal has held that where the valuation dates of th...
Vsihnu Dutt Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN365
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.2. I haveread the F.I.R. as well as the statements of Lalsingh and Smt. Billa. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken place, is so on natural and improbable that it cannot be believed. According to him, there might have been some incident of mar-peet, but subsequently, colour has been given to make the case more serious. According to him, it cannot be believed that the petitioner committed rape on Smt. Billa who is on groving up woman, in the presence of her Devar as well as in the presence of the brother of the petitioner. He further submits that the incident is said to have taken place in a field where Bajra Crop was standing and in such a situation, Smt. Billa Would have sustained injuries on the lower part of her body.3. Without commenting on the merits of the case, but taking into consilcration all the facts a...
Bharat Prakash Sharma Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN218
M.R. Calla, J.1. The petitioner is a practising advocate at Ajmer and he says that he has filed this writ petition in the name of public interest litigation for the welfare of the public of large. His case is that he is one of the applicants for the examination of the State and other Subordinate Service i.e. the Combined Competitive Examination to be conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on behalf of the Government of Rajasthan for recruitment to, the various services under the Rules of 1962. Petitioner's case is that the last date for submission of the application forms was 25th April, 1990 and initially the examinations were notified to be held on 9th September, 1990 and for that purpose information was, given to the petitioner on 16th August, 1990 i.e. a month prior to the date of the examination and the petitioner's counsel states that for this purpose the notice we given to all the candidates. This examination, which was scheduled to be held on 9th September 1990, w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manjeet Stone Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: (1991)91CTR(Raj)239; [1991]190ITR183(Raj); 1990WLN(UC)307
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 40% and not 30% on the trucks used by it in its business ?'2. The assessee, M/s. Manjeet Stone Company, Kota, is carrying on the work of quarrying and sale of stones excavated from mines and derives its income from this business. The assessee owns trucks which are used mainly for carrying the stones from the quarry to the sales depot or to the godown of the assessee. The trucks are registered as 'public carriers'. For the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee claimed depreciation on these trucks at the rate of 40%. The Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation at the rate of 40% as claimed by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax initiated proceedings under Secti...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sujankhan Laloo Khan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: [1993]204ITR528(Raj); 1990WLN(UC)265
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to registration?'2. Theka Sharab, Ajmeri Gate, Jaipur, consisting of two partners, was granted a liquor contract for Jaipur district. Sujankhan, one of the partners in Theka Sharab, Ajmeri Gate, Jaipur, constituted a sub-partnership firm, Sujankhan Laloo Khan, consisting of Sujankhan Laloo Khan, Razaq Khan and Badroo Khan. This partnership was constituted with effect from April 1, 1974, by a deed which was drawn up on February 26, 1975. The names and shares in the profit and loss of the sub-partnership business are stated to be as under :(1) Sujan Khan, S/o Khaju Khan 30 per cent.(2) Laloo Khan, S/o Khaju Khan 40 per cent.(3) Razaq Khan, S/o Khaju Khan 15 per cent.(4) Badroo Khan, S/o Karne Khan 15 per cent.3. The main purpose of cons...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ganga Stone Traders
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN393
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:Wthether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the aseessee was entitled to depreciation on trucks @ 40% as against 30% allowed by the Income fax Officer?2. The assessee is engaged in the business of exploiting the mines and sale of stones. The assessee also owns trucks, which are used in carrying the stones from the miness to the godown of the assessee or to sale dopot of the assessee-For the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee claimed depreciation on the trucks, which were used by it for its bueinss @ 40%. The Income Tax Officer, while completing the assessment, allowed the depreciation @ 30%, though the assessee claimed the same @ 40%. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assi...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sultan Akhtar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN394
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee in entitled to depraciation at the higher rate of 40% and not 30% on the trucks and dumpers used by the assessee for its business?2. The assessee M/s Sultan Akhtar of Ramganjmandi was engaged in the business of mining. The assessee was using dumpers for excavating the mines and using the trucks for carrying the stones from the mines to their godowns or to the sales depot. For the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee claimed depreciation on the dumpers and the trucks @ 40%, which was allowed by the Income Tax Officer, while completing the assessment, Under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, but later-on, it was noticed by the Income Tax Officer that the depreciation has wrongly been allowed to the assessee @ 40% and he, there...
S.K. Cafe Proprietor Surendera Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)241
R.S. Verma, J.1. Mr. K.C. Samdaria submits that this case is squarely covered by a ruling of this court viz. judgment of this court rendered in Ghoomar Cafe v. The State of Raj. And Ors. (1986) 3 J.S. 109 and this case may be disposed of accordingly. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition is extremely vague and, therefore, no direction need be given in this case. If I have gone through the averments made in the writ petition and I find that they are extremely vague and generalised, however in my opinion the instrumentalities of the state cannot distriminate the case of one person from another when they are similarly circumstanced. In my opinion the instrumentalities of the state should keep in mind the various observations made in Ghoomar Cafe's case (Supra), while implementing the provisions of Cinematograph Act, (37 of 1952) and the rules made there under.2. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »