Rajasthan Court March 1997 Judgments
Laxmi Industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1997
Reported in: [1998]231ITR514(Raj)
A.A. Khan, J.1. By his three identically worded separate orders the learned Special Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, has framed the charges against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act of 1961). In all these three petitions such orders of the learned magistrate have been challenged on the same grounds. These were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this combined order. 2. None has appeared for and on behalf of respondent No.l. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are the partners of petitioner No.l which is a partnership firm. The petitioners, during the years under consideration, namely, assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 deducted interest of different amounts payable to Shiv Kishan Shiv Narain, Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar on their deposits/ securities. They cred...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Industries Ltd. Company and ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Raj)436
M. A. A. KHAN, J. :By his three identically worded separate orders the learned Special Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur has framed the charges against the petitioners for the offence punishable under s. 276B of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act of 1961). In all these three petitions such orders of the learned Magistrate have been challenged on same grounds. These were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this combined order.2. None has appeared for and on behalf of respondent No. 1. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.3. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are the partners of petitioner No. 1 which is a partnership firm. The petitioners, during the years under consideration namely asst. yrs. 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 deducted interest of different amounts payable to Shiv Kishan Shiv Narain, Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar on their deposits/securities. They credited the interes...
Tag this Judgment!Nisar Mohammed and Etc. Etc. Vs. Rajasthan State Co-operative Housing ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj186
ORDERP.P. Naolekar, J. 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Respondent No. 3 the Bhavi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Bhavi, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur is a registered society under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) and the petitioners are members of respondent No. 3-Society. Respondent No. 1-Rajasthan State Co-operative Housing Finance Society Ltd., Jaipur is ah apex Co-operative Society. The apex Society makes available loan for Grah Nirman through the Primary Grah Nirman Co-operative Societies and through Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti to the members of the respective societies. Admittedly, loan was sanctioned by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 3 and in turn by respondent No. 3 to the petitioners. As the petitioners have not paid the loan amount in accordance with the terms of the agreement, an order was passed under Section 117 of the Act an...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Vs. M.R. Trading Company
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)111STC313Tribunal
1. This application for revision was filed against the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal (now Rajasthan Tax Board), Ajmer dated March 6, 1996 allowing the second appeal and setting aside the orders of the assessing authority dated June 15, 1982 and also of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-II), Jaipur dated November 2, 1982. On the establishment of this Tribunal, it stood transferred to it under Section 15, Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995.2. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision may be summarized thus : During the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee-respondent, purchased raw hides and skins of Rs. 8,76,879 against "H" forms for export to a firm of Madras. They were sent to it after some processing.Assessment order under Section 9 under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the CST Act") was passed on February 27, 1982 giving benefits under Section 5(3) of the CST Act. On May 20, 1982, notice under Section 12, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (in short, "the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chiman Lal Vs. Datar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ267; 1997(1)WLN396
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-Petitioners Nos. 1 to 5.2. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 8th August, 94, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3 Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 7/94 and the order passed on 5th June, 95 by the learned Additional Sessions. Judge (Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Cases) Jodhpur in Criminal Revision No. 21/95.3. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 8th August, 1994 dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Cases) by his order dated 5th June, 1995 dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur.4. At the very outset it would be proper to point out that the proviso given below Section 39...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Dutt Vs. Gyan Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj302
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. This review petition has been preferred before this Court under Sections 114 and 151, C. P. C. against the order D/- 6-5-1996, passed by this Court in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 49/96.2. The grievance of the petitioner in short is that the petitioner is the owner of the disputed premises in question and has been in its possession since the year 1943. Earlier the father of the petitioner was the absolute owner and after his demise the petitioner is in possession of the property as absolute owner. The property is being used for the residence of the petitioner for the past 50 years.3. It has further been contended that in the year 1992 due to heavy and constant rains, the backside wall (North side) (As marked in Commissioner's report D/- 11-9-94) collapsed suddenly with the result that the house became unsafe for dwelling. As a result of the fall of the back wall (North side), the kitchen of the petitioner as well as the W. C. and living room were substantiall...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Lal Bothra Vs. Ram NaraIn Arvind and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC461; 1997(1)WLN287
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Respondents Thakurmal and Rama Kant have personally remained present before this Court through their learned Counsel Shri Ojha. They have also filed their affidavit. In the affidavit they have stated, 'that the contemnors again respectfully and humbly with utmost sincerity submit unconditional apology for the alleged incident and assure the Hon'ble High Court that they will no indulging in any such activity in future. They have highest regards and respects in the mind for the Court of law including subordinate courts and also Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court.' Thus, they have tendered unconditional apology in writing. It appears to us that from their hearts they have tendered the unconditional apology. They are very much repenting about their action. They also assured this Court that in future they will not indulge in such type of activities. Practically for the whole day they remained present in the Court. Hence notice issued against them stands discharg...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. Sohanlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR581(Raj)
1. At the instance of the Revenue Department, the Tribunal referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for our opinion :'Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in holding that the property in question was purchased by the minor sons of the assessee and as suchthe income of this property could not be assessed in his hands, is perverse ?'2. This reference relates to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The assessee is a doctor. He submitted his return of income for the assessment year 1973-74 declaring income of Rs. 17,303 inclusive of salary, private practice, property income and income from interest from his minor sons. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had purchased immovable property Rs. 60,000 in the names of his minor sons, Arun Kumar and Anil Kumar, during the accounting years relevant to the assessment years of 1973-74 and 1974-75. The ass...
Tag this Judgment!Deen Dayal Vs. Rajasthan State Text Book Board and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ821Raj
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, is praying for a direction to the non-petitioner for not terminating his services from June 5, 1989 and to regularise the services of the petitioner.2. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent Rajasthan State Text Book Depot, Bi-lara (referred to hereinafter as 'the Bilara Depot') is a registered dealer of the stationery and book selling to the schools from Class I to Class VIII and the work continues throughout the year. According to him, the gross family income of the petitioner is less than Rs. 3,500 per year as per the certificate issued by the Block Development Officer. He submits that he had moved an application to the respondent Manager of the Bilara Depot for appointment on the post of peon and he was appointed as peon on daily wages on May 6, 1983 and his services were terminated on October 31, 1983. He had completed 179 days @ Rs. 9/- per day. It is submitted that he was again appointed as peon on d...
Tag this Judgment!D.L. Chauhan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC277; 1997(1)WLN288
J.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the impugned orders Exs. 22, 25 and 26 imposing upon him the punishment of stoppage of one grade increment for one year with cumulative effect, which order also contains a direction that the petitioner be not posted on the site of construction and be not paid the salary during the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance which had been paid to him during the period of suspension.2. The petitioner who had initially joined as Junior Engineer in the Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter called the Board') in April, 1971, was promoted the post of Assistant Engineer on 29.12.1973 and was further promoted to the post of Resident Engineer (Executive Engineer) on 28.3.1989. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 14.6.1991 for a contemplated enquiry against the petitioner relating to the house collapse/damaged in Sector 17, Extension Chopasani Road Scheme, Jodhpur. He was charge-sheeted vide letter dated 28.6.1991 issued by the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »