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.
Gurdev Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN425
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. On 3.8.94 Mr. Richpal Singh P.W. 5. who was working as S.H.O. Sangaria had gone for usual patrol at 6 p. m. It is the case of the prosecution that while he was on patrol, he received an information at about 6.30 p. m. that the accused Is in possession of popy husk and is likely to go to Punjab by bus and presently the accused Is standing near Udham Singh Chowk. This Information received by P.W. 5 Richpal Singh was recorded by him as Ex. P/4. This document Ex. P/4 was recorded In compliance with Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case of the defence is that in terms of Section 42(2) this information was not communicated to his superiors.2. Without going into the further details of the prosecution case or defence raised by the accused in this case, the present case can be disposed of only on the small point:(1) that the information recorded by the Investigating Officer Under Section 42 in the shape of Ex. P/14 was not communi...
Bharat Dan Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC200; 1996(1)WLN416
N.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dt. 13.4.1993 (Anx. 1) whereby he was retired compulsorily, with all consequential benefits. It has been prayed that the order dt. 27.1.1984 (Anx.3) whereby penalty of withholding of three grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed, may be set aside.2. The petitioner has alleged that he was initially appointed as Patwari on 5.5.1963 and continued as such but while he was serving as Patwari at Samdari, Tehsil Siwana, Dist. Barmer he has been compulsorily retired vide order dt. 13.4.1993 (Anx. 1). Hence,, this writ petition.3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case law cited at the Bar. I have also perused the material on record carefully including the reply and rejoinder and also gone through the relevant provisions of law.4. It is settled that the appointing authority is empowered to retire a government servant compulsorily after forming subjective satisfaction on the basi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sheo Raj Bhatia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Raj)264; [1999]235ITR523(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the assessment year 1985-86, in the case of the assessee, referred the following question of law, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned members of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow 50 per cent, deduction of incentive bonus received by the assessee from the Life Insurance Corporation of India relying on Board's Circular No. 14/9/65-IT (AI) dated September 22, 1965, which, in fact, is applicable to the Life Insurance Corporation agents and not for Development Officers ?'2. The assessee was working as Development Officer in the office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Sirohi. During the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee, apart from the salary and other allowance, received an amount of Rs. 50,132 from the Life Insurance Corp...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premier Vegetable Products
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Raj)372; [1997]227ITR931(Raj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law arising out of its order dated November 28, 1980, in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was right in deleting the disallowance of non-lifting commission of Rs. 78,501 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleting the disallowance of Rs. 15,003 on account of provision for bonus ' 2. It was found by the Tribunal that the assessee made a provision for payment of bonus at the rate of 24 per cent, on the basis of agreement with the employees association. The agreement was dated April 2, 1974, and the assessment proceedings ended on March 31, 1974. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer was of the view that the liability for payment of the increased ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shiv Raj Bhatia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Raj)379; [1997]227ITR7(Raj); 1996(1)WLN374
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1986-87, referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in directing to allow 50 per cent, deduction of incentive bonus received by the assessee from the Life Insurance Corporation of India relying on Board's Circular No. 14/9/65-IT (A-I), dated September 22, 1965, which, in fact, is applicable to the Life Insurance Corporation agent and not to the Development Officer. The cases of the Development Officer are governed by the Board's Circular F. No. 200/127/ 84-IT (A), dated September 29, 1987/ October 14, 1987 ?'2. The assessee was working as the Development Officer with the Life Insurance Corporation of India. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1986-87, the assessee receiv...
Smt. Amar Kumari Surana Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR344(Raj)
1. The assessee filed an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), and prayed that the Tribunal be directed to refer the following questions for our consideration :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in computing the undisclosed investment of the assessee on the basis of the fair market value of the property in question as determined under Section 55A of the Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 23,400 could be considered as unexplained investment of the assessee and that the same represented the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources during the relevant accounting year ?' 2. The application filed under Section 256(2) was allowed on July 30, 1980, and the Tribunal was directed to refer the aforesaid questions. In pursuance of th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Peer Khan Chand Khan Morak
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR796(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated March 14, 1986, in respect of the assessment year 1983-84 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 holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 40 per cent. and not at 30 per cent. on the trucks and dumpers used by it in its business and also for plying them on hire ?'2. The facts of the case as stated are that the assessee is carrying on the business of exploiting the mines and taking out stones with the help of dumpers. On these vehicles, the assessee claimed depreciation at 40 per cent. The Income-tax Officer had held that the special rate of depreciation at 40 per cent. was not applicable inasmuch as the assessee did not use the vehicles for any public transport business. They were being used for its own business. The depreciation was, therefore, rest...
Jhamku Devi and ors. Vs. Lallu Ram Yadav and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ891
D.C. Dalela, J.1. A claim petition was filed by the appellants on account of the death of Nanchi Lal in a motor accident near Rampuria bus stand near Bagroon on the Jaipur-Ajmer National Highway. The deceased was the husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of the appellant No. 2 and son of the appellant No. 3. On 2.11.1984 at about 5.00 p.m., the deceased Nanchi Lal was going in a truck No. RSB 525. The truck was being driven rashly and negligently with high speed by its driver. When the truck reached near Rampuria, another truck No. RRM 2111 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver came from the opposite side. Both the drivers of the trucks could not control their vehicles resulting in head-on collision between the two trucks and in this, several persons including Nanchi Lal died. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence of both the sides and arguments advanced by both the sides, has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 69,000/-. The appellants have preferred this...
Pan Devi and anr. Vs. Lallu Ram Yadav and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ1240
D.C. Dalela, J.1. These four appeals are directed against the common order and award dated 14.9.1988 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur. They raise similar questions of fact and law, therefore, these are decided together by this common judgment.2. Claim petitions were filed by the appellants-claimants on account of death of the deceased persons in a motor accident near Rampuria bus stand near Bagroo on Jaipur-Ajmer National Highway. The deceased was husband of the appellant-claimant No. 1 and son of the appellant-claimant No. 2 in each case. According to the claim petition on 2.11.1984 at about 5.00 p.m. the deceased were going in truck No. RRM 2111 from Jaipur to Ajmer as servants of the contractor. The truck was being driven very rashly and negligently with high speed by its driver. When the truck reached near Rampuria bus stand, another truck No. RSB 525 came from the opposite direction. Both the drivers of the trucks were driving their respective vehicles rashly and neg...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Peer Khan Chand Khan.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Raj)308
ORDERJAIPUR BENCHV. K. SINGHAL, J. :The Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dt. 14th March, 1986 in respect of the asst. yr. 1983-84 under s. 256(1) of the IT Act :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 40% and not 30% on the truck and dumpers used by it in its business and also for plying them on hire' ?2. The facts of the case as stated are that the assessee is carrying on the business of exploiting the mines and taking out stones with the help of dumpers. On these vehicles the assessee claimed depreciation at 40%. The ITO had held that special rate of depreciation at 40% was not applicable inasmuch as the assessee did not use the vehicles for any public transport business. They were being used for its own business. The depreciation was, therefore, restricted to 30%. In appeal, the AAC enhanced the rate to 40% relying on the decision in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »