Rajasthan Court February 1995 Judgments
M.C. Sindhi Vs. Hemndass
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLC126; 1995(1)WLN388
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. The suit for eviction on the ground of personal bonafide and reasonable necessity of the disputed shop has been decreed by the learned Additional District Judges No. 3, Kota, vide his judgment and decree dated 28.10.1994. This decree has been challenged in this Second Appeal. The only submission of the counsel for the appellant is that question of partial eviction was not decided by the lower courts. Under these circumstances the case be remitted to the lower court by framing additional issues, regarding partial eviction. In Support of his arguments, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a judgment of Apex Court passed in Krishna Murari Prasad v. Mitar Singh reported in : AIR1994SC489 .2. Counsel for the plaintiff respondent submits that the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The said judgment was delivered under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (1982), herein after referred to as the ('Bihar -Act')...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pramod Kumar Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: (1995)125CTR(Raj)154; [1995]216ITR598(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The only controversy which has been raised in the present matter is regarding the interpretation of the provision of Section 16(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as to whether the salary received by the asses see-partner falls to be considered under the head 'Income from salaries' and consequently standard deduction is allowable under Section 16(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer has rejected the claim of the assessee for standard deduction on the ground that the salary drawn by a partner from the partnership-firm does not qualify for deduction under Section 16(1) of the Income-tax Act. The appellate authority has considered the matter and was of the view that the character of salary received by a partner from a partnership-firm cannot be considered as chargeable under the head 'Salaries'. In these circumstances, the deduction under Section 16(1) was held not allowable to the assessee. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, however, following its de...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Beawar English Wine Merchants Associati ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Raj)268
ORDERBY THE COURT :The following question arising out of ITA No. 1004/Jp/1985 has been referred in an application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of CIT(A) that for the purpose of calculation of interest under s. 139(8) the firm is to be treated as registered firm and further holding that the interest under s. 139(8) was not chargeable in this case ?'2. The assessee has filed return of income on 13th March, 1985 which was obviously over delayed. The ITO, therefore, treated the assessee as an URF for the purpose of computation of tax and charged interest under s. 139(8) of the IT Act as well as initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act.3. Mr. Ranka, learned counsel for the assessee, brought to our notice that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of their Lordships in the case of Ganesh Dass Sheeram vs . ITO : [1988]169ITR221(SC) . In the case of G...
Tag this Judgment!Hetram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC174; 1995(1)WLN397
Gyansudha Misra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner 'on the averment that he has a right to be promoted on the post of Lower Division Clerk from the post of Class IV, from the date when he became eligible for it. The claim has been asserted relying on Rules 7 and 7(3) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Service Rules, 1957, which envisages that 10% posts of Clerks will be filled up by departmental promotion from amongst Class IV employees.2. The petitioner, who is a member of. Scheduled Caste, was appointed on Class IV post initially for a period of three months and was thereafter made permanent vide order dated 23.5.1983. It appears that the petitioner moved an application for acquiring further educational qualification, which was allowed and the petitioner passed his Secondary Examination in the year 1983. Thereafter on 18.4.1984, the petitioner moved an application for promotion from the post Class IV to the post of Lower Division Clerk and thereafter he m...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bagpatia Food Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Raj)437; [1995]216ITR543(Raj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated May 20, 1981, in respect of theassessment years 1972-75 to 1974-75 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 Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not have been invoked in this case ?'2. While submitting the returns, the assessee claimed development rebate at 25 per cent. which was allowed by the Income-tax Officer initially. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 154 were initiated on the ground that the assessee was doing oil production work by installing oil expellers and, therefore, in accordance with entry 51 of Schedule V to the Act, the assessee is not entitled for development rebate at 25 per cent. The assessee was given an opportunity to show cause as to why the development rebate should not be withdrawn. The assessee submitted in writing that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Deen Dayal Khunteta Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLC22; 1995(1)WLN378
M.P. Singh, J.1. The petitioner was a member of Rajasthan Judicial Service. He was compulsorily retired from service under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (in short, the Rules) with effect from 2.8.1985. He had four months unutilised privilege leave at his credit.2. After his retirement, he made a request to the High Court through its Registrar for grant of cash equivalent to leave salary in respect of unutilised privilege leave. The Registrar vide his letter No. Estt. B-2/IV/13/77/B-7655, dated 5.10.1985 informed him that since the order of retirement was passed under Rule 244 (2) of the Rules, he was not entitled to get any amount in respect of the unutilised Privilege Leave as per Rule 91(b)(1) of the Rules.3. The denial of the said benefits has been challenged on the ground of discrimination. He claims the same benefit which is being given to the Government employees who retired under Rule 244(1).4. In order to appreciate the controversy, the provisions of Rule 244...
Tag this Judgment!Mangi Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC338; 1995(1)WLN255
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The petitioner's father Shri Jetha Ram died while working in the Public Health & Engineering Department, Bikaner. The petitioner approached respondent No. 2, Superintending Engineer, P.H.E.D., Bikaner Circle, Bikaner, for his appointment under the provisions of Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of the Government Servants dying while in service Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules'). The petitioner was given appointment on the post of Store Munshi on workcharge basis vide order dated 7.10.1978 in the pay scale of 355-10-415-15-550-20-570, which was later on revised to pay scale of 490-840. Later on the petitioner made an application that he should have been appointed on the post of L.D.C. on the regular establishment. The petitioner was given appointment on the post of L.D.C. vide order dated 6.8.83 in the pay scale of 490-840 on the pay of Rs. 490/- per month, which is lowest of the pay scale. However, that appointment was cancelled by order dated 30.9.83 and the pet...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Vishnu Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Raj206; 1995(1)WLN251
1. The State of Rajasthan has filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge rendered in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4734/93 - Vishnu Lal v. State of Rajasthan and another, dated 21-9-1993, whereby the learned single Judge has relied on two decisions of this Court rendered in Brijesh Kumar v. Slate of Rajasthan and another (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1235/90), decided on 6-8-1992 and Dharam Singh v. State (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 405/91), decided on 7-10-1991, and allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for admission to the General Nursing Training Course by treating him eligible and admit him to that course, provided he finds place in order of merit amongst the candidates already admitted within a period of one week. It is this order which has been challenged by the learned counsel appearing for the State on the ground that these two decisions which have been relied upon by the learned single Judge pe...
Tag this Judgment!Kehar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Raj222; 1996(1)WLC241; 1995(1)WLN240
ORDERR.R. Vadav, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for issuing a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from recovering the amount of Rs. 16,555/-on the basis of order dt. 28-2-1979 passed by the Tehsildar, Padampur(Annexure-4) which has been affirmed vide order dt. 22-4-1980 by the Revenue Appellate Authority (Annexure-5 to the writ petition).2. Brief history of the facts to be noticed for the disposal of the instant writ petition is that on 27-8-1971 the Sub-Divisional Officer found that the petitioners had 72 bigha 9 biswa land in excess of the ceiling applicable to them and directed its resumption. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid order was passed without service of notice under Rule 14 of the Ceiling Rules upon them and, therefore, it was an ex parte order. It is also alleged that the petitioners applied for setting aside the aforesaid ex parte order. The application of the petitioners was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sardar Stones
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: (1995)125CTR(Raj)197; [1995]215ITR350(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated September 30, 1985, in respect of the assessment year 1982-83, 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 coming to the conclusion that the sale price realised included price of stones as well as hire charges of trucks from the customers and thereby holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 40 per cent. and not at 30 per cent. as is allowable in case of motor lorries ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trader in stones and owned two trucks which are used for transportation of stones from the site of mines to the depot of the assessee as well as to the customers' premises. The claim of the assessee was that the trucks were occasionallyused and when not in use by the assessee hired out to a sister concern. The income from hiring of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »