Rajasthan Court March 1994 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. Jankidas Rampratap.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR26(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated April 9, 1986, in respect of the assessment year 1980-81 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition of interest paid to Brij Mohan Suresh Kumar and Asha Ram Subhash Chandra (HUFs) ?'The brief facts of the case are that Sarva Shri Asha Ram and Brijratan were partners of the assessee-firm. The assessee-firm had paid Rs. 9,140 as interest to the Hindu undivided families, Asha Ram Subhash Chand and Brijratan Suresh Kumar. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this amount. This matter has been considered by this court as well as by the apex court and it has been held that the interest paid to the Hindu undivided family cannot be disallowed as it is not paid to the partner but to the Hindu undivided family which is a differe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Santlal Kalyani and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Raj)149; [1995]214ITR171(Raj); [1995]83TAXMAN462(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated January 30, 1984, in respect of the assessment year 1977-78 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally right in holding that the notice under section 210 was an invalid notice on which no interest under section 215 can be charged ?'The brief facts of the case are that an assessment under section 144 was framed on October 29, 1976, for the assessment year 1974-75. The notice under section 210 was issued on November 18, 1976, to the assessee for making advance payment of Rs. 37,400. In pursuance of the said notice, the assessee filed an estimate on December 14, 1976, under section 212 of the Act and he had estimated the income at Rs. 60,000 and the advance tax payable thereon was at Rs. 4,400. The ex parte assessment order was cancelled on December 9,...
1. Manoj Textiles (D.B. I.T.R. No 65 of 1989) 2. Fashion Fabrics (D.B. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR441(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL J.-Since both the aforesaid cases involve identical questions of law, they are being disposed of by this common order and for the disposal of these cases, the facts of the case of Manoj Textiles v. CIT (D.B.I.T. Reference No. 65 of 1989) are being taken up.The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order in respect of the assessment year 1981-82 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the development charges paid to RIICO is capital expenditure?'The brief facts of the case are that a sum of Rs. 5,338 was paid by the assessee to RIICO as development charges which was considered by the Income-tax Officer as capital expenditure as it related to the development of the land which was leased for 99 years. After taking into consideration the various clauses of the agreement, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that ...
Bhom Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj241; 1994(2)WLC422
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to quash the order dt. 16-2-1994 (Annexure 2), passed by the Assistant Registrar disqualifying the petitioner under Section 34(7A) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965.2. Breifly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that he was elected as Chairman of Barsinghsar Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti on 20-1-1991 and represented his Society Shri Barsinghsar Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti in the election of the Central Coop. Bank as President of the primary society. It is alleged that the petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Central Cooperative Bank on 15-9-1992 and since then he is working. It is also alleged that after the election of the petitioner as Chairman, the non-petitioner No. 4 along with some other persons challenged the election under Section 75 on the ground that he is disqualified under Section 34(7 A) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred...
Bashir Shah and ors. Vs. Stae of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2526; 1994(2)WLC371; 1994(1)WLN455
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 27-11-1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1991, by which, he found the appellants guilty of offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo R. I. for six months.2. According to the prosecution story, it is alleged that on 14-8-1987 at 1 p.m., one Kamal Prakash Nakedar, Naka No. 7, Chhoti Sadri Road, Nimbahera sent an information on phone to police station, Nimbahera that 4-5 persons were beating one person near the Naka and necessary steps be taken. The said information was recorded in the Rojnamcha as Ex. P. 19. Thereupon ASI Laxmilal and Head-constable Manikant accompanied with the police force proceeded towards to the said Naka, where it was transpired that the injured was shifted to the hospital and that the assailants had fled away towards Ranikhera, ASI Laxmilal wi...
Ganpat Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1565; 1994(1)WLN521
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-8-93, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 102/34 and 307/34, I.P.C.2. Accused-appellant Ganpat Singh, Nakul Singh and Tejraj Singh were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, for the offences Under Sections 302, 302/34, 307 and 307/34, I.P.C. Accused-appellant Ganpat Singh and Nakul Singh were, also, tried for the offence under Section 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act.3. The prosecution case, as unfolded as the First Information Report Ex. P.25, registered at Police Station, Hiran Magri, Udaipur, at 7.30 p.m. on 15-12-90, on the statement Ex. P.I made by P.W. 1 Girdhar Gopal, who was lying on Bed No. 9 in the Hospital by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Hiran Magri, Udaipur, contains the fact that the complainant-injured Girdhar Gopal and his b...
Ram NaraIn Alias NaraIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2513; 1994(1)WLN503
B.R. Arora, J. 1. These three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 6-10-1989, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced appellant Ram Narain alias Narain for the offences under Sections 302 and 447 I.P.C. and co-accused Ram Gopal alias Gopal for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 447 I.P.C.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused-appellant Ram Narain along with co-accused Ram Gopal alias Gopal, committed the murder of one Madan Lal (aged about 80 years) R/o Nandiya Khurd in the intervening night of 20/21st September, 1986, at about 1.00 a.m., in the Dhani of PW 4 Kana Ram and PW 11 Mohan Lal. The incident was witnessed by PW 4 Kana Ram and PW 11 Mohan Lal. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Kherapa by PW 4 Kana Ram at about 9.00 a.m. on 22-9-1986. The accused-appellant and the co-accused were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, c...
Arjunlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN426
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to quash the charges framed against the petitioner under Section 18 & 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by order dated 16.5.88 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara.2. It was first contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on the allegations levelled by the complainant, Drug Inspector. No offence is made out to have been committed by the petitioner.3. As per the prosecution case the Drug Inspector, Bhilwara found the petitioner selling certain medicines at Medical Practitioners and Medical Store on 27.1.80. He was found selling drugs without licence and the some of the drugs sold by him were on analysis found to be of sub-standard. These are in the substance the charges levelled against the petitioner. It was the case of petitioner that he is not the manufacturer of the drugs but was merely selling the drugs found in his possession as an agent of Cash Medicos, Kota. According to the learned Coun...
Dabur India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation, Jaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj78; 1994(2)WLC244
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Ayurvedic Medicines, Syrups. Hair-oils, and Tooth-paste etc. and is having its factory at Sahibabad (UP) and Alwar (Rajas-than). A warehouse is situated at Plot No. 7 Bais Godam within the limits of Municipalities Corporation, Jaipur. The. goods manufactured at the aforesaid two factories are transported to the warehouses at Jaipur from where part of the said goods are sold for local consumption and part of the same are re-exported outside the Municipal limits for sale, use or consumption in different villages, cities and towns in Rajasthan. The dispute has arisen because the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur is collecting the octroi duty on all the goods which are bought within the municipal limits of Jaipur at the said warehouses,2. It is submitted that a sum of Rupees 68,995/- has already been collected which is not due in accordance with law and that the petitioner was not allowed the current account facility. By the order dat...
Vijay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ457Raj; 1994(2)WLC382
G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated December 30, 1993 issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Jaipur (West) by which the service of the petitioner has been terminated as a measure of retrenchment. He has also prayed that the respondents be directed to treat him as semi-permanent Cattle Guard in the Department.2. Facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. According to the petitioner, he had 1 joined service as Cattle Guard on being appointed as such in Jaipur Range of the Forest Department with effect from May 16, 1989 under the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Combined Plantation Project, Jaipur West, Jaipur. From the date of his appointment, the petitioner continuously served the Department till the issue of order dated December 30, 1993 (Annexure-II) retrenching the petitioner from service by paying him pay in lieu of one month's notice and retrenchment compensation for the service rendered by him.3. The petitioner has pleaded that after having...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »