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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anjani Kumar and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR786(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order dated December 30, 1982, in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing of items referred to in the Ninth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in allowing initial depreciation under Section 32(1)(vi) ? Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that expenditure of Rs. 7,140 was not entertainment nature ?' The claim of the assessee under Section 32(1)(vi) for initial depreciation of new machinery was disallowed. The assessee is carrying on the business of purchase of grey cloth and after applying certain mechanical and chemical process it converted the grey cloth into finished cal...
Kailash NaraIn Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR921(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, vide its order dated October 23, 1982, in respect of the assessment year 1978-79 has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated September 12, 1980, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : ' Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest amounting to Rs. 5,757 awarded under Section 110CC of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was a revenue receipt and thus exigible to tax ?'2. The facts as stated in the statement of case are that the assessee met with an accident when a jeep hit him on February 4, 1972, as a result of which he received severe injuries including fracture of bone, and was admitted in the hospital for medical treatment. The assessee is a practising lawyer and filed the claim for compensation under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, before the Claims Tribunal and the said Tribunal, vide its order dated A...
Dhanna Lal and ors. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLN106
Y.R. Meena, J.1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed that the order of Board of Revenue be quashed.2. The petitioners are khatedar tenant of agricultural land khasra No. 272/2/2 measuring 28 bighas 6 biswas, situated in village Itawa Tehsil Amer. On 6.2.79. the Tehsildar Amer moved an application before the Additional Collector, Jaipur with an averment that on the settlement Register of the village Itawa for the year Svt. 2011 to 2033 Prabhat s/o Balu Meena is recorded as khatedar of the land khasra No. 272/2/2 measuring 28 bighas 6 biswas. In the year 1961, the khatedari of the land has been transferred in the name of Dhanna, Nanu and Prabhat sons of Harla, vide mutation No. 105 dated 25.11.1961.3. Since the original khatedar of the land was a member of scheduled tribe, the subsequent transfer of khatedar in the name of Dhanna, Nanu and Prabhat Ahir hit by Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 [hereinafter to...
Madhav Prakash Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN413
N.K. Jain, J.1. The petitioner's case is that he being a dependent of the deceased of the government servant was eligible and applied in pursuance of the advertisement Anx. P/2 for one of the three posts but by not adding 5 bonus marks to the percentage as per mark sheet Anx. P/1 he was not called for the interview whereas persons having less percentage than the petitioner have been admitted against these three reserved posts.2. In compliance of the order of this Court dt. 17.8.1995, the petitioner was allowed to appear In the interview but it was ordered that his result be kept separately.3. In compliance of the notice reply has been filed stating that the minimum qualification prescribed for dependants of deceased employees quota is Secondary School Examination as per Item No. 9 though for general category, the minimum qualification prescribed under the rules is 10+2 examination. It has been stated that even by adding 5 bonus marks the petitioner was not eligible for reserved seat, s...
Girdhari Singh Bapna and Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj24; 1996(3)WLC226; 1996(1)WLN617
ORDERAnshuman Singh, J.1. Since both these petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of Public Interest Litigation for issuance of direction to the Union of India to enact laws prohibiting the sale of single digit lottery either 'organised' by the Central Government or other State Governments, they are being disposed of by a common order. In SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1018/1994, the petitioner-Girdhari Singh Bapna is a practicing Advocate in the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur and in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 438/1995, the petitioner-Mahesh Jhalani is a social worker and journalist and is working in Sunday Mail, a national paper. Since the facts alleged by the petitioners in both the cases are more or less identical and brevity, it is not necessary to refer them in detail. 2. In the case of Girdhari Singh Bapna v. Union of India which is similar to the case of Mahesh Jhalani v. Union of India on 17-5-1995, the Union of India was grant...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhanwarlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR870(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J. 1. The Revenue has moved this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with a prayer that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to refer the following two questions of law for the opinion of the High Court in the case of assessee, Bhanwar Lal, for the assessment year 1985-86, which, according to the Revenue, arise out of the order dated April 30, 1993, passed by the Tribunal in Income-tax Appeal No. 1333/(JP) of 1989 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 35,000 made on account of low-household expenses made on the basis of his statement recorded under Section 132(4) ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,000 made on account of understatement Of marriage expenses as per his admission in stat...
Bhupendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3180; 1996(2)WLC710; 1996(1)WLN167
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor who accepts notice on behalf of the State. In order to avoid delay; in dipsosal of trial, the present petition is finally disposed of at admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the partie Disposal of the present petition at admission stage would be in consonace with the mandatory provisions contemplated under Section 483, Cr. P. C. which clearly provide that High Court shall so exercise its superintendance over sub-ordinate courts so that cases are disposed of expeditiously.2. I have perused the order impugned dated 12-4-96 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh whereby he set aside the order dated 24-2-96 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused-petitioner for one day under Section 205, Cr. P. C.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that in the facts and circumstances of the present ca...
Rajasthan Judicial Service Officers Association and anr. Vs. State of ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC594; 1996(1)WLN629
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioners, by this writ petition, have prayed that the respondents may be directed to provide dress allowance of Rs. 10,645/- initially to the Judicial Officers of the State of Rajasthan and thereafter the kit maintenance allowance @ Rs.400/- per month renewable from time to time, i.e., every three years with all consequential benefits and reliefs with effect from 1.1.1993, i.e., the date when the dress allowance was made applicable to the members of the Judicial Services.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the State Government, vide Notification dated 18.9.92 made a provision for the grant of dress allowance @ Rs. 15,000/- to the members of the Rajasthan Judicial Services and the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services with effect from 1.1.1993, but this amount of dress allowance which is payable after every three years, is must on the lower side looking to the status of the judicial officers, the dignity of their offices, the price o...
State of Assam and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN651
Anshuman Singh, J.1. These four petitions are directed against the order dated 11.12.1995 passed by the State of Rajasthan imposing ban on the sale of Tickets of Lottery within the territory of State of Rajasthan alleged to be 'organized' by the State of Assam, Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland. Since the controversy involved in all these four petitions is came, they are being disposed of by a common order. The facts giving rise to these four petitions lie in a narrow compass, as under:S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1055/1995 was filed by one Gyan Singh Gujar against the State of Rajasthan and Ors. praying for issuance of a mandamus directing the State of Rajasthan to impose a ban on Single Digit Lottery organized by the State of Rajasthan. Apart from the said petition, two other writ petitions being numbered as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1018/1994 Girdhari Singh Bapna v. Union of India and Ors. and SB Civil Writ Petition No. 438/1995 Mahesh Jhalani v. Union of India and Ors. were also filed...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhanwar Lal Jas Raj Gehlot.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Raj)568
B. R. ARORA, J. :The Revenue has moved this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act with a prayer that the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur may be directed to refer the following three questions of law for the opinion of the High Court in the case of assessee Bhanwar Lal for the asst. yr. 1987-88, which, according to the Revenue, arise out of the order dt. 30th April, 1993 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 1377/Jp/1990 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honble Tribunal was legally justified in :(i) upholding the order of CIT(A) thereby accepting the agriculture income of the assessee as shown by him on the basis of alleged declared income from this source in asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1988-89 which have been set-aside under s. 263 of the IT Act ?(ii) upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) that difference between estimated agriculture income of Rs. 1,11,000 and as shown by the assessee and his family members at Rs. 2,58,000 should not be treated as the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »