Rajasthan Court May 1996 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.
Uttama Ram Bhargava Vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC81; 1996(1)WLN343
N.K. Jain, J.1. This writ petition is pending since 1992 and has come up before me.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has to his credit NTC certificate of the year 1990 passed from the I.T.I., Barmer. He was selected for the training for one year under the apprentice programme vide order dt. 5.3.1991. He has relied on Kendriya, Sarvodaya Sahkari Sangh Ltd., Jaipur v. Jawan Singh Ranawat 1967 RLU 73 and S.P. Srivastava v. Banaras electric Light & Power Co. 1988 (1) 16 Factory and Labour Report 386 and submits that after completion of one year of training the petitioner was not absorbed, as Fitter and prayed for necessary direction.3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant Sections 7, 8, 18 and 22 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and also the provisions of the ID Act, so also the case law cited at the Bar.4. As per Section 2(aa) of the Apprentices Act, 'apprentice' means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pur...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR876(Raj)
1. The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 1,50,590 for the assessment year 1976-77 and Rs. 49,661 for the assessment year 1977-78 as liability towards sales tax. The assessee deals in manufacture and sale of maida and suji on the sale of which the tax liability was claimed. The facts of these two years are stated to be similar to those of 1975-76 where the additions were deleted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Board of Revenue which was the final fact finding authority has held that there is no liability of tax on the sale of maida and suji in the case of the assessee. The claim was based on a later decision of the apex court in the case of Vishnu Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CTO, [1978] 42 STC 31 and the Income-tax Officer was of supply of cement is not applicable for sale of maida and suji, etc. (sir). It was also found that in the return submitted the turnover Was not disclosed as taxable in sales tax law. There was no order passed by the assessing authority under the sales ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation (No. 1)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR246(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question arising out of its order dated April 23, 1981, in respect of the assessment year 1977-78 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no error prejudicial to the Revenue for the Commissioner of Income-tax to invoke his powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts of the case as found by the Tribunal are that there was a footnote in the printed report of the directors disclosing that the accumulated interest accrued on amounts decreed or under litigation amounting to Rs. 21,43,395 had not been taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at the income. This amount included a sum of Rs. 9,85,821 relating to the assessment year 1977-78. The Income-tax Officer did not include the amount of Rs. 9,85,821 in the income of the assessee while passing the assessment ...
Prakash Chand Surana Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR604(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 referring the following question of law arising out of its appellate order dated August 29, 1984 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the correct status of the assessee was specified Hindu undivided family or otherwise ?'2. The facts of the case are that the family of the assessee consists of the karta, his son and wife. The Wealth-tax Officer treated the status as specified Hindu undivided family. On appeal before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), it was stated that the only member of the Hindu undivided family who had taxable wealth was the wife of the karta and no co-parcener is having any taxable wealth. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the status of the assessee could not be taken as that of a specified Hindu undivided family. The Commissio...
Jaipur Electro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR535(Raj)
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. As directed by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question to this court for its opinion :' Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 54,000 paid to the staff was not on account of work incentive and was further justified in disallowing the said amount as having not been expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the company '2. The relevant facts, giving rise to the abovementioned question, are these :The assessee-company was incorporated on April 17, 1971. It took over the business of the firm, Asiatics, Jaipur, as a going concern with effect from May 17, 1974. The said firm had been deriving income mainly from assembling, manufacturing and selling diesel generating sets. The first accounting year of the assessee-company e...
Draupadi Devi and ors. Vs. Inder Kumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1996
Reported in: 1998ACJ418; 1996(3)WLC356
Gopal Lal Gupta, J.1. The above mentioned three appeals have arisen out of the award dated 7.7.1988 passed in Claim Case Nos. 62 and 63 of 1983. Appeal Nos. 244 and 243 of 1988 have been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the award and appeal No. 623 of 1992 has been preferred by the owner for holding that the insurance company is liable for the entire amount.2. The accident occurred on 17.10.1982 on Jaipur-Sambhar road. Prem Kumar and Anil Kumar were going on scooter No. RRB 6515. Anil Kumar was riding on the pillion. Truck No. RSC 4494 driven the award dated 7.7.1988 passed in Claim by Joginder Singh, hit the scooter from behind with the result that scooter came under the truck and Prem Kumar and Anil Kumar, both received fatal injuries. They died on the spot. The legal representatives of Prem Kumar and Anil Kumar filed separate claim applications. The owner and driver did not appear despite service. Insurance company took legal objections. One of the legal objections was ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Raj)145
V. K. SINGHAL, J. :The Tribunal has referred the following question arising out of its order dt. 23rd April, 1981 in respect of asst. yr. 1977-78 under s. 256(1) of the IT Act :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no error prejudicial to the Revenue for the CIT to invoke his powers under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts of the case as found by the Tribunal are that there was a footnote in the printed report of the directors disclosing that the accumulated interest accrued on amounts decreed or under the litigation amounting to Rs. 21,43,395 had not been taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at the income. This amount included a sum of Rs. 9,85,891 relating to the asst. yr. 1977-78. The ITO did not include the amount of Rs. 9,85,821 in the income of the assessee while passing the assessment order. The CIT issued notice under s. 263 as to why the amount should not be included in the total...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.M. Bhatia Associates
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1996
Reported in: [1998]234ITR687(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J.1. The assessee-firm, S.M. Bhatia Associates, Chittorgarh, for the assessment year 1988-89, showed the gross income of Rs. 1,19,460, against which it claimed expenses like the salary to the supervisor, conveyance expenses, stationery charges, overtime payments made to the supervisory staff, depreciation, etc., and declared the net income at Rs. 69,525. No books of account were maintained by the assessee.2. The case of the assessee was that it received a fixed income by way of commission at four per cent. from J.K. Cement Company. The Income-tax Officer applied the net profit rate of six per cent. on receipts from the work of supply of labourers and on other receipts he applied the net profit rate at 10 per cent. and in the cases of Khera Brothers and Saurastra Engineers Industries he applied the net profit rate at 12 per cent. The Income-tax Officer also disallowed the expenses claimed by the assessee. The assessee, aggrieved with the order passed by the assessing authori...
Jaipur Electro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Raj)237
M. A. A. KHAN, J. :As directed by this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act) the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has referred the following question to this Court for its opinion.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 54,000 paid to the staff was not on account of work incentive and was further justified in disallowing the said amount as having not been expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the company ?'2. The relevant facts, giving rise to the above mentioned question, are these :The assessee-company was incorporated on 17th April, 1971. It took over the business of the firm M/s Asiatics Jaipur as a going concern w.e.f. 17th May, 1974. The said firm had been deriving income mainly from assembling, manufacturing and selling diesel generating sets.The first accounting year of the assessee-company ended on 30th June, 1974. Its managing director, Shri Manak Raj ...
Mahaveer Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN623
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 8.4.1981 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, Camp at Alwar, whereby he convicted the appellant for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life Imprisonment an a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for five months.2. Stated in succinct, the prosecution case is that on 28 October, 1979 at about 9.00 A.M. the appellant Intentionally dealt axe blows and caused fatal injuries to Smt. Ball, who was carrying the tiffin for her daughter. On the report (Ex.P. 2) lodged by Makhan, FIR Ex.P. 3 was drawn at Police Station Bansur and after usual investigation a challan was filed against the appellant in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Behror, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions.3. The appellant was charged for the offence Under Section 302 IPC. He denied the indictment and claimed trial. After trial the learn...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »