Rajasthan Court March 1995 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. Kapoor Chand Ram Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1995
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(Raj)457; [1995]216ITR318(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. On the request of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising outof its order dated September 3, 1984, in respect of the assessment year 1972-73 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in not upholding the interest charged by the Income-tax Officer under Sections 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while completing the assessment for the first time under Section 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts of the case are that in this case, a notice under Section 148 was issued by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee who is a partner in the firm, Kapoor Chand Ram Chand, Alwar. A property was constructed at Alwar by Kapoor Chand and the total cost of construction was not disclosed as no return was filed under Section 139(1) and in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 148, the return was filed. The interest under Section 139(8) as ...
Associated Stone Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1995
Reported in: (1995)124CTR(Raj)233; [1996]217ITR246(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law arising out of its order dated November 14, 1985, in respect of the assessment year 1978-79 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to receive interest under Section 214 of the Income-tax Act in respect of the advance tax of Rs. 86,355 paid during the financial year ended March 31, 1978 ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) was not competent to pass an order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act when his attention was drawn to the fact that he had omitted to give interest under Section 214 on the above amount due to the assessee ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee submitted the returns of its income and claimed a refund of Rs. 1,82,000 on the ground that the advance tax paid was Rs. 15.62 lakhs which was d...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raj Trading Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR208(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. On the request of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law under its order dated June 17, 1982, in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Es. 21,500 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a manufacturer of groundnut oil and deals in oil and oil-cakes, etc. The assessee has entered into an agreement for the purchase of 43 tonnes of oil-cakes with Smt. Usha A. Agrawal of Bombay on October 18, 1973. A similar agreement for the purchase of 43 tonnes of oil-cakes was entered into with Shri Suresh K. Agrawal on October 23, 1973. The contracts were settled on October 20 and October 24, 1973, respectively, without taking delivery of the goods and the difference of an amount of Rs. 10,750 was paid to each of the parties. The actual payments ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaipur Stock Exchange Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR101(Raj)
1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue has prayed that the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated September 27, 1991, may be directed to be referred to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that once the delay in the matter of filing application under Section 12A was condoned by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the application was as good as an application having been made within one year of creation of the trust or establishment of the institution ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of the provisions of Section 12A(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Commissioner was not justified to put a rider on the effect of his order of granting registration to the institution and consequently holding that the company was entitled to the benefit of ...
Mishri Lal Gordhan Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR42(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. At the request of the assessee, the following five questions of law have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1978-79 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), annulling the assessment order dated August 28, 1981, and restoring the matter back to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to proceed afresh with the examination of the case ? 2. Whether, the Tribunal having found that the directions of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner were purely with a view to buy time for carrying out investigations and also finalising the assessment order, the impugned order was not liable to be annulled but to be restored to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ? 3. Whether, the Tribunal was right in law in reviving the proceedings when admittedly the assessment ...
Mohd. Nasir and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC217; 1995(1)WLN519
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. These revision petitions have been directed against the order dated 26.6.93 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, (Sessions Judgej Sriganganagar in aforementioned Special Case 'Stale v. Hardayat Singh & Others', whereby he has framed charge for the offences Under Sections 8/25 and 29, NDPS Act (in short, 'the Act') against petitioner Mohd. Nasir s/o Mohd, Hussain r/o Karachi (a Pak National), under Section 8/29 against petitioner Ahsan Khan alias Baba and under Section 8/29 of the Act. and Section 112, Customs Act against petitioner Mahavir Prasad.2. Since these revision petitions arise out of the same order, they are being disposed off by this common order.3. Stated in succinct the skeletal facts necessary for disposal of these revisions are that on a tip off that at the border village Bhutiwala Chak 24-0, a large quantity of heroin and gold was expected to be smuggled from Pakistan to India, a Police party led by Shri D.S, Dinkar, ASP, with the assist...
Satish Chand Vs. Smt. Kumud Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)WLN577
M.P. Singh, J.1. Pandit Jandalal Sharma was a Railway employee. He owned a House No. AMC No. 479/27, Johans Ganj, Ajmer. He was married to Smt. Shyama Devi Sharma. They had no issue. He died on 21,3.1974 and Smt.Shyama Devi Sharma died on 29.4.1978.2. Respondent Smt. Kumud Sharma is the daughter of Heera Lal who was the brother-in-law of Pandit Jandalal Sharma. The appellant is the grand-son of Pandit Jandalal Sharma.3. Smt. Kumud Sharma filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 on 25.5.1978 for grant of a Probate stating that Jandalal Sharma had adopted her as his daughter in her childhood and subsequently executed a Will on 11.3.1974.4. The appellant filed objection stating that Pandit Jandalal Sharma had neither adopted her as his daughter nor executed any Will in her favour. It was a forged Will. No probate could be granted in her favour.5. The appellant's case further was that he has been living since his childhood with Pandit Jandalal Sharma. He had an...
Laxman Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3952; 1995(3)WLC304; 1995(1)WLN337
Rajendra Saxena, J.1 This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 15-12-94 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, whereby he acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. but convicted him under Section 324, I.P.C. and by giving the benefit of probation of good conduct released him under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short the Act) and also imposed an amount of Rs. 2000/- as compensation under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act to be paid to injured P.W. 8 Sukh Lal within 15 days, in default to undergo, R.I. for two years.2. Briefly the relevant facts are that on 15-4-92 at about 11 a.m., P.W. 8 Sukh Lal along with his wife P.W. 7 Smt. Leela was coming from Biliya Bus Stand and was going to his in-laws' house that in the way appellant Laxman voluntarily inlicted a stab wound by a knife in his abdomen causing injuries. Sukh Lal became unconscious and was taken to the hospital. P.W. 1 Dr. Vinay Kumar, P.H.C., Sagwara found fol...
Jan Mohd. and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)WLN446
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Petitioner Jan Mohd. has filed petition under Section 482 Cr.PC against the order dated 23.9.1989 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Makrana whereby after conducting enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.PC on the Criminal complaint filed by Abdul Rehman, he took cognizance against Jan Mohd. for the offences under Sections 147,323,336,341/149 IPC and against co-accused persons Mohd. Rafi, Narayan, Hanuman and Mangu for the offences under Sections 147,323,341 read with Section 149 IPC and ordered for issuance of summons against the said accused persons.2. Petitioner Abdul Rehman has filed petition under Section 482 Cr.PC against the order dated 18.4. 1988 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Makrana in F.R. No. 88/86, Police Station, Makrana, whereby the said Final Report was accepted.3. Since both the petitions arise out of the same incident and are inter-connected, those are being disposed of by this common order.4. Briefly the rel...
Dr. B.D. Chatterjee Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLC744; 1995(1)WLN360
Mohini Kapur, J.1. Two Writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner Dr. B.D. Chatterjee against two different orders passed against him. Both the orders are in connection with his service. The second order is consequential to the first order. Both the writ petitions are being disposed of together.2. The petitioner Dr. B.D. Chatterjee was born on 27th July, 1942. In the year 1969 he was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon and was confirmed as such in the year 1971 and he continued to work as such. Besides M.B.B.S. he was holding a diploma in Dermatology, obtained in 1968 from Maulana Azad Medical Collage, Delhi. In the year 1980 he completed M.D. in Genera] Medicine. On 25th August, 1981 he was appointed as Lecturer in Skin/V.D. on urgent temporary basis on their recommendation of the Central Selection Committee in accordance with Rule 30(1) of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules').3. In the year 1981, the Rajasthan Pub...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »