Rajasthan Court October 1992 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.
Chhotu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)WLC186; 1992WLN(UC)566
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition for issue of a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service as Beldar and to give him all consequential benefits.2. In his writ petition the petitioner has stated that he was engaged as Beldar w.e.f. 19.2.87 under Muster Roll No. 9059 on Reengus-Khatu Road, by the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. Sub Division, Dataramgarh, district Sikar. He there-after continued to work under non-petitioner No. 2 till 11.10.88. During this entire period he had worked under the same Sub-Division. After he had completed 455 days of work, his service was terminated by the non-petitioner No.2. Before terminating his service non-petitioner No. 2 did not give any notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation, to the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that the P.W.D. comes within the definition of the 'industry' under Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He falls within the definition of 'workman' under sectio...
JarIn Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)WLC173; 1992(2)WLN506
N.K. Jain, J.This miscbail application Under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is directed against the orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh dt. 25.7.92 and the order of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pratapgarh dt. 16.7.92 whereby they have declined to issue a direction for bail Under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. in the matter arising out of F.I.R. No. 7/92 for the offences Under Section 8/18 and 8/21 of the NDPS Act.1. Brief facts which give rise to this bail application are that the petitioner Jarin Khan was arrested on 30.3.92 at village Siya Khedi with a few-sachets weighing 26 gms. of brown sugar. The petitioner moved an application for bail, before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh on the ground that more than 90 days have been passed from the date of his arrest but no challan has been filed. The learned Magistrate rejected his application vide order dt. 16.7.92. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for bail before the learned Sessions J...
Manoj Dyeing Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC67; 1992(2)WLN110
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1982-83 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the development charges paid to RIICO is in the nature of capital or revenue ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is carrying on the business of dyeing and tentering of voile on job basis for which the assessee obtained land in the industrial area from RIICO. The development charges of Rs. 5,925 were claimed as revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 3,950 to the profit and loss account and Rs. 1,975 has been debited under the head 'Discount' which has ultimately been adjusted in the processing account. The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the said amount is the consideration for acquisition of leasehold rights in the plot allotted to the assessee by the RIICO. The a...
Hanuman Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ1215Raj; 1993(1)WLC356
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The petitioner joined service in the erstwhile State of Ajmer, as L.D.C. on March 21, 1946 and retired from service of the Government of Rajasthan on January 31, 1982. For the last over three decades the petitioner has been vigorously pursuing his case in the courts of law with the faint hope that his grievance will ultimately be remedied. He has not been paid amount due to him in the light of a judgment and decree passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction. He has not been paid post retirement benefits for last more than 10 years and 6 months.2. After his appointment as L.D.C. in the year 1946, the petitioner was confirmed on that post in 1953. He was promoted as U.D.C. in the year 1955. After the merger of the erstwhile State of Ajmer in Rajasthan with effect from January 1, 1956, petitioner was posted as Inspector Land Records. He was posted in Tehsil Dudu by the Collector Jaipur in pursuance of the directions of the Commissioner Ajmer Division. The petitioner re...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zenith Commercial Agencies Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Raj)115
ORDERBY THE COURT :Mr. N. M. Ranka, appears on behalf of the assessee and submitted that this reference application is required to be answered on the short ground because the point which has been referred to in this case already stands answered by this Court in the case of CIT vs. Oriental Power Cables Ltd. (1992) 105 CTR (Raj) 76.2. This reference application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, has been filed by the CIT, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for calling reference, on the following two questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not under an obligation to deduct tax at sources under s. 194A of the IT Act, 1961 and consequently, directing the ITO to remit the interest charged under s. 201(1A) of the IT Act ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not holding that unless there was a valid justification for crediting interest to any account, other than...
Bhanwaroo Khan Vs. Azim Khan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)WLC491; 1992(2)WLN146
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated August 1, 1977, passed by the District Judge, Churu, by which the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and maintained the decree and judgment dated 9-9-69, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Ratangarh.2. Plaintiff-appellant Bhanwarro Khan, Sabdal Khan, Jassu Khan and Adam Khan (sons of Mishri Khan) filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Ratangarh, against Azim Khan and Mehboob Khan for declaration and perpetual injunction with respect to the land bearing Khasra No. 164 measuring 46 Bighas and 1 Biswa. It was averred in the plaint that Bhopal Khan the grand father of the plaintiffs and father of Mehboob Khan, was the Khatedar of the land measuring 46 Bighas 1 Biswa in Khasra No. 464 situated in the Rohi of town Sujangarh. After the death of Bhopal Khan, his two sons Mishri Khan (the father of the plaintiff) an Mehboob Khan, who is the other son of Bhopal Khan, were entered...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chandra Shekhar Pawan Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR435(Raj)
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated April 10, 1986 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified legally in upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who directed to treat the firm as a registered firm, even though he was not satisfied about the genuineness of the firm and a partner was held to be benami of the other?'2. Brief facts of the case are that an application for registration of the firm was submitted to the Income-tax Officer and he has refused registration on the ground that Smt. Shanti Devi, one of the partners of the firm, was benamidar of her son, Shri Chandra Shekhar. An appeal was preferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who agreed with the finding of the Income-tax Officer that the assessee has fai...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Co-operative Supply and Commission Shop ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1992
Reported in: [1993]204ITR713(Raj); 1992(2)WLN163
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for decision of this court, in respect of the assessment year 1978-79 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the interest of Rs. 17,292 received by the co-operative society from 13 members and from bank on outstanding balances could qualify for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act ?'2. The facts of the case are that during the course of examination of the books of account of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer found that the interest paid by the members on the closing balance as at the end of the accounting year was Rs. 15,167 and the assessee has also received interest from the bank of Rs. 2,125. The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the said amount of Rs. 17,292 does not qualify for exemption as provided under Section 80P(2)(a)(...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Western India State Motors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR363(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated July 23, 1981, in respect of the assessment year 1978-79, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure amounting to Rs. 18,402 incurred by the assessee-company on the replacement of petrol engine with diesel engine in its car did not result in an advantage of enduring nature to the assessee and hence the aforesaid expenditure was revenue in nature ?'2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company and, during the assessment year 1978-79, it replaced one petrol engine of its car by a diesel engine, the cost of which was Rs. 18,402. The Income-tax Officer found that the said expenditure is not of revenue nature but is of capital nature and, therefore, cannot be allowed as deduction. An ap...
Pukhraj Rikhabdass Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR770(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The assessee has submitted an application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, raising the following question arising out of the order of the Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1978-79 :'Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in valuing the Bombay property on the basis of the valuation made by the final valuer adopting hypothetical rent capitalisation method and rejecting the claim of the assessee for valuing the property on the basis of capitalisation of actual receipts of rent ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that there was a property which was given on rent to Messrs. N. P. Metal Works. The said firm consisted of the assessee and his brother as partners. The rent which was received from the property was not considered as adequate and was considered collusive. A suit was also pending in the court and, therefore, the valuer estimated the valuation of the property at Rs. 1,95,000. Half share of it wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »