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. Moti Mal Mohnot.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Raj)88
B. R. ARORA, J. :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the asst. yr. 1985-86, in the case of the assessee, by its order dt. 28th Dec., 1989, referred the following question of law, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Members of the Tribunal were justified in directing the ITO to allow 50% deduction of incentive bonus received by the assessee from LIC of India relying on Boards Circular No. 14965-IT(A. I) dt. 22nd Sept., 1965 which in fact is applicable to LIC agents and not for Development Officer ?'2. The assessee was working as the Development Officer with the LIC of India and was posted at Pali. The assessee, during the asst. yr. 1985-86, received an amount of Rs. 55,160 as the incentive bonus from the LIC of India. He claimed a deduction on this amount. The ITO Pali, by its order dt. 28th Feb., 1986, disallowed the deduction on the amount of incentive bonus by holding that the...
Amba Lal and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1998ACJ279; 1996(3)WLC336
D.C. Dalela, J.1. A claim petition was filed by the appellants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tonk, on account of the death of their son Har Lal in an accident on 2.5.1987 involving a car No. BAN-85-B 9708 owned by the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 was driving the car. It is alleged that car hit the deceased Har Lal resulting in severe injuries and thereby caused his death.2. The respondents denied these facts and it was contended that the boy aged about 5-7 was standing on the right side of the road all alone and when the vehicle came near the boy all of a sudden the boy crossed the road from right side to the left side and in this attempt he hit the left side bumper of the vehicle. According to the respondents, the accident took place without any rashness and negligence on the part of the driver.3. The claimants-appellants examined Amba Lal, appellant, as AW 1 and Ram Kishore as AW 2, whereas the respondents examined Khima Ram, respondent No. 2 as NAW 1 and Dharma R...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jag Mohan Goyal.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Raj)90
B. R. ARORA, J. :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the asst. yr. 1983-84, in the case of the assessee, by its order dt. 11th March, 1991, referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in allowing Rs. 6,216 as expenses for earning incentive bonus of Rs. 15,540 from the LIC of India for the asst. yr. 1983-84 ?'2. The assessee was working as the Development Officer in the Office of the LIC of India. During the previous year to the asst. yr. 1983-84, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 15,540 as incentive bonus. The assessee, on this amount of Rs. 15,540, claimed the deduction @ 40% amounting to Rs. 6,216. The ITO, District Siriohi, by its Order dt. 27th Jan., 1986 treated the incentive bonus as the part of the salary and allowed only the standard deduction and the claim of the assessee for additional expenses amounting to Rs. 6,216 as the 40% o...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jankidas Ram Pratap.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Raj)262
B. R. ARORA, J. :Sarvashri Asha Ram and Brij Ratan, who were the partners in the assessee firm M/s Jankidas Ram Pratap, Bikaner, inherited certain funds on the death of their father Sunder Lal, who died intestate on 7th Sept., 1973. The assessee-firm, for the asst. yr. 1984-85, paid interest amounting to Rs. 23,098 to the HUF of these two partners. The ITO, A Ward, Bikaner added back the amount of this interest under s. 40(b) of the IT Act on the ground that in view of the provisions of s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Asha Ram and Brij Ratan became the sole owner of their respective shares which devolved upon them out of the separate property of their deceased father and for all intents and purposes these are the individual funds of the partners Asha Ram and Brij Ratan.2. Aggrieved with the order dt. 26th Aug., 1986 passed by the assessing authority making disallowance of this amount of interest, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), Jodhpur, who, by his order dt....
Mustqeem Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC190; 1996(2)WLN556
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. All the three accused, namely, Mustqeem, Nausad and Rafiq have preferred this joint appeal against the judgment and order dated, May 30, 1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Baran, whereby the appellant. Mustqeem was convicted under Section 302 IPC and other two appellants Nausad and Rafiq were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each. In default of payment of fine, to under go simple imprisonment for three months.2. We need not state the facts of the case in detail as the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, restricted his contention on the question about the nature of the offence committed by the appellants and the sentence to be awarded. Still, in order to appreciate the real controversy, some necessary facts may be given; At the relevant time of incident, the appellant and the deceased Jakir Hussain resided in the same locality of Baran town. At about 7.45 p.m. on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›