Rajasthan Court November 2001 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.
Hemant Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj528
Panwar, J.1. By this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners who were facing trial for offence under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seek quashing of the order dt. 8.9.1993 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), whereby the trial court took cognizance for theoffence under Section 7/16 of the Act against the petitioners who are partners of firm M/s. Merta Oil Company, Merta City.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the order impugned.3. At the outset, it may be noticed that the order impugned was passed on 8.9.1993 and thereafter, the trial court proceeded in the matter. Petitioners along with Sita Ram, M/s Surajmal Sitaram and M/s Nathmal Sohan Lal Jain, respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 respectively are facing trial for the offence as noticed above.4. This criminal misc. petition is argued by the...
Bhakar Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1870; 2002(5)WLC187; 2002(2)WLN92
Prasad, J.1. The petitioner, who is a Government servant, applied for grant of house building advance to the Collector, Jodhpur in the year 1983. The claim of the petitioner is that he waited for sanction of the house building advance for years together but the house building advance was not sanctioned to him. However, a letter dated 6.7.1996 was received from the Collectorate, Jodhpur asking him to complete certain formalities. He was informed that unless he fulfils all the requirement as required vide the aforesaid letter, he will loose his seniority, which is maintained for grant of house building advance.2. The Municipal Board, Phalodi had issued a Public Notice for sale of various abadi plots at Adarsh Nagar, Phalodi. As per the requirement of the letter issued by the Collector (Awas), Jodhpur the petitioner had to enter into an agreement for purchase of plot. As per requirement of letter dated 6.7.1996 the petitioner purchased Plot No. 133 in Sector 2, Adarsh Nagar, Phalodi for a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Lal Kewal Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: [2004]265ITR640(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This is a reference application at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with respect to the assessment year 1986-87 seeking reference of the following questions, arising from the judgment of the Tribunal :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in taking the view that the assessment for the year under consideration was, barred by limitation despite the material on record contrary to the claim of the assessee in the matter and further this issue did not arise out of the appeal filed by the Revenue ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the assessee's book results acceptable was not inconsistent and contrary to the material on record against the assessee's claim in the matter and hence unreasonable and perverse in law ?'2. The respondent-assessee...
Kundanlal Pyarelal and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: [2004]265ITR654(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This reference application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been filed at the instance of the assessee seeking reference on the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that the notice under Section 148 dated June 8, 1988, is valid and with jurisdiction?2. Whether on correct interpretation of Section 42 of the Indian Partnership Act read with Section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that it is a case of dissolution and not of change in constitution ?3. Whether the learned 'tribunal was right in law in holding that the Revenue was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for adopting the same value for the second period as had been adopted in valuing the closing stock for the first period ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a firm was constituted of four partners, namely, Shri Pyarelal, Shri Nath...
Kundanlal Pyarelal and Co. Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)172CTR(Raj)17
N.N. Mathur, J.This reference application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed at the instance of the assessee, seeking reference on the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding, that the notice under section 148 dated 8-6-1988, is valid and with jurisdiction ?(2) Whether, on correct interpretation of section 42 of the Indian Partnership Act read with section 187(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that it is a case of dissolution and not of change in constitution ?(3) Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that the revenue was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for adopting the same value for the second period as had been adopted in valuing the closing stock for the first period ?'2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that a firm was constituted of four partners, namely, Shri Pyarelal, Shri Nathma...
Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN666
Rajesh Balia, J.1.Application for dispensing with preparation of paper-book is allowed.2. The writ petition No. 1011/1999 filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 14.5.1999 for want of prosecution because the learned Counsel for the petitioner was absent on 14.5.1999 when the matter was called out. The restoration application too has been dismissed vide order dated 24.3.2000 by holding that the explanation furnished by the application in respect of the previous order-sheet is not in consonance with the previous order-sheets and the writ petition was also dismissed on merit. Hence, this appeal.3. We have perused the order as well as considered the explanation furnished by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.4. It is true that the facts given about the proceedings on 19.4.1999 is not in consonance with the proceedings recorded. However, very precisely it was the case of the appellant that the learned Counsel submitted that he appeared on that date and he submitted that some similar wr...
Cit Vs. Lakhpat Film Exchange
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Raj)94
By the Court This reference application at the instance of revenue under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, seeking reference for the opinion of this court on the following questions :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in :1. observing that before pointing out any defects in the books of accounts of the assessee the assessing officer was not justified in referring the matter of determination of cost to the District Valuation Officer ?2. not accepting the valuation made by the DVO as per CPWD rates adjusted with the cost index applicable for Jodhpur ?3. allowing the claim of higher depreciation of cinema building by treating the same as a plant ?4. holding that the remittance of entertainment tax is a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee whereas the remittance of trading liability to provide assistance for efficient and profitable running of business and is not directly linked with any capital investment ?'2. It is ...
Cit Vs. Ram Lal Kewal Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN578(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J. This is a reference application at the instance of the Commissioner, Jodhpur, under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with respect to the assessment year 1986-87 seeking reference of following questions, arising from the judgment of the Tribunal :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in taking the view that the assessment for the year under consideration was barred by limitation despite the material on record contrary to the claim of the assessee in the matter and further this issue did not arise out of the appeal filed by the revenue ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that assessee's book results acceptable was not inconsistent and contrary to the material on record against assessee's claim in the matter and hence unreasonable and perverse in law ?'2. The respondent-assessee is a bus operator. The assessment...
Raj Kamal Gaur Vs. the Rajasthan High Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN642
Bhagwati Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, is a Judicial Officer. The writ petition has been filed by him to challenge the order of punishment awarded to him by the respondents after departmental proceedings. The petitioner was imposed with a penalty of reversion from the post of Civil Judge (Sr.Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to the post of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate.2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the Rajasthan Judicial Service (R.J.S.) on 19.7.1985 as Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Kishangarhbas, District Alwar. He was promoted to the post of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and was also granted senior scale in the year 1993. Thereafter the petitioner was placed in the selection scale from senior scale. The petitioner claims that he continued to serve with the best of his sincerity and hard work. The petitioner has claimed that while he was posted as Additional Chief Judicial Magist...
C.i.T., Jodhpur Vs. O.N.G.C.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN74
Balia, J. 1. All these cases relates to the assessment of Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'ONGC') as agent of non-resident assessee M/s. Compagnie Generals Deo Gophysique, France (in short 'CGG'). It is not in dispute in any of these cases that the non-resident assessee is engaged in the business of providing services or facilities in connection with prospecting for, or extraction or production of mineral oil as well for supplying plant and machinery on hire on hire used, or to be used. 2. D.B. I.T. Appeal No. 68/2001 is an appeal against order of the Income-Tax Tribunal dated 30.3.2000. We shall first consider the issue in appeal. 3. The assessee acting under Section 44BB(2) returned his taxable income under the head profits and gains of business or profession on the basis of computation made in terms of Section 44BB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. According to the assessee he is liable to pay tax on '10% of the aggregate of the amount specified in Sub- section...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »