Rajasthan Court September 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.
Raghuvir Soni Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2001
Reported in: (2001)172CTR(Raj)105
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard learned counsel for the appellant.The appellant has sought to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal sustaining the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, of 1961') in respect of additions made in the income of the appellant as a result of cash found in his possession, source of which was not explained to the satisfaction of the assessing authority.2. The facts relevant for the present purposes, which need to be noticed are that the assessee was found in possession of a sum of Rs. 2,30,000 during the previous year relevant to assessment year 1990-91 by the customs authorities.The statement of assessee was recorded by the customs authorities on 24-5-1989, in which the assessee admitted the said amount to be his own, which he has acquired by indulging in purchase and sale of contraband gold. The said amount was handed over to the Income Tax Authorities under section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 19...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Chatar Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2001
Reported in: 2003(2)WLN105
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The above misc. petition and the revision petition are inter-related, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.REVISION PETITION NO. 314/972. The present revision petition has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the order dated 28.2.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act Cases, Udaipur by which he discharged the accused respondent-Chatar Lal.3. The present revision petition arises in following circumstances:(i) On 14.11.1995, Enforcement Inspector, Surendra Kumar Bhatnagar lodged a written report at the Police Station Dhanmandi, Udaipur against Mangi Lal who was proprietor of Shri Nath Somani Transport Company and against Chatar Lal, who was Chief Executive of the Transport Company stating that between the period from 2.11.1995 to 3.11.1995, godown and premises of Shri Nath Somani Transport Company, situated at 14/50, Gadiya Devri, Dhanmandi were inspected and during inspection three cylinders filled with LPG Ga...
Bharat Construction Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: [2002]258ITR140(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating the claim of depreciation as covered in the rate of net profit applied by it ?'2. The assessee-firm, carrying on construction business, had shown a net profit of 5.6 per cent. on total contract receipts of Rs. 64,30,344. As most of the expenses including the labour payments were unvouched, the assessing authority applied the provisions of Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and determined the income of the assessee by applying a net profit rate of 8 per cent. on the total receipts. This resulted in a net addition of Rs. 1,36,444. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) gave relief of Rs. 36,000 and retained the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,00,444. It was contended before the Tribunal that in a ...
Bali Mohd. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj328; 2002(2)WLN328
Garg, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment and order dated 4.7.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No. 66/99 by which he allowed the appeal of the other accused persons, namely, Safi Mohd. And Alladitta, but dismissed the appeal of the present accused petitioner and upheld the judgment and order dated 11.11.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Cr. Case No. 31/96 so far as they relate to him by which he was convicted for the offence under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months R1. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition, in short, are as follows:- On 16.2.1993, PW.1 Rafika (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), wife of the present accused petitioner, lodged a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh against the prese...
Mathura Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj568; 2002(5)WLC340; 2002(2)WLN59
Panwar, J.1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 22.4.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Revision Petition No. 67/1997 whereby the learned revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.8.1996 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Original Case No. 555/1994 whereby the learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the orders impugned and relevant material available on file.3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court fell in error in framing the charges against the petitioner without there being any sufficient material. It was further contended that the orders of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court are arbitrary and based on insufficient material. It was furth...
Bharat Construction Co. Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)408
N.N. Mathur, J.The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, has referred the following question for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating the claim of depreciation as covered in the rate of net profit applied by it ?'2. The assessee-firm, carrying on construction business, had shown a net profit of 5.6 per cent on total contract receipts of Rs. 64,30,344. As most of the expenses including the labour payments were unvouched, the assessing authority applied the provisions of section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and determined the income of the assessee by applying net profit rate of 8 per cent on the total receipts. This resulted in a net addition of Rs. 1,36,444. The Commissioner (Appeals) gave relief of Rs. 36,000 and retained the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,00,444. It was contended before the Tribunal that in a construction business, whenever a net profit rate is ...
JaIn Prakash JaIn Vs. Raj. Fin. Corpn. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC687; 2001(4)WLN689
ORDERYou were appointed on the post of Junior Assistant vide Office Order No. RFC/GAS (1) dated 10th November, 1982 initially on probation for a period of 6 months. The probation period was extended from time to time and extended period of probation expires on 30.6.1984 (As per Order No. PA-3(3)/6511 dated 22nd March, 1984).On the expiry of extended period of probation your services are dispensed with w.e.f. 30th June, 1984 (afternoon) and relieved of your duties.Sd/-General Manager (A)It is seen from the said order that the appellant was appointed on the post of Junior Assistant, vide order dated 10.11.1982, initially, on probation, for a period of six months, which was extended for a further period of probation, which expired on 30.6.1984. On the expiry of the extended period of probation, i.e., on 30.6.1984, the services of the appellant were dispensed with and he was relieved of his duties, vide the impugned order dated 21.6.1984.2. It was contended before the learned Single Judge ...
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Swarn Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN193
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal arises out of the petition filed by respondent No. 1 Swarn Singh on 21st August, 1980. The respondents No. 4 & 5, since deceased, were made party to the writ petition because they were the joint tenants of the land in question. The petition was to challenge Notification dated 12.5.1980 (Ex.5) which was a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 concerning Murabba No. 58/62 in Chak 1-A (Chhoti) an Murabba No. 11 in Chak 6(e). The present petition relates to the acquisition proceedings concerning Murabba No. 58/62 in Chak 1-A. The Writ Petition No. 1550/1980 was preferred by the tenants of Murabba No. 11 in Chak 6(e)--Ratana Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan which has since been dismissed, as informed by the learned Counsel for the parties.2. In the present petition, notice was issued on 22nd August, 1980 and an interim order was issued that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. This interim order was confi...
Vishwanath and ors. Vs. Wishwanath and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN627
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order under revision, it transpires that a suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the respondents-plaintiffs to the effect that an open court- yard existing between the house of plaintiffs and the defendents- respondents belongs to him and the defendants-petitioners are trying to open the gate in front of the court-yard although the land does not belong to them. The defendants-respondents filed an application of counter claim asserting therein that the land in question neither belongs to the plaintiffs nor to the defendants- respondents but it is a public property. This application of the defendants-petitioners was rejected by the court below on the ground that the counter claim at the instance of the defendants-petitioners is not maintainable for the property admittedly is not claimed by them and in any view, the plaintiffs will have to prove their title to the disputed property ...
Satya Deo Rajpurohit and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN445
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This bail application has been filed under Section 438*Cr.P.C. A complaint was filed by Smt. Savita w/o Dr. Rajnish against the petitioners before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner for offences under Sections498-A and 406 I.P.C., which was forwarded to S.H.O., Mahila Police Thana, Bikaner, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner for investigation and enquiry under Sec, 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis of the complaint, the police registered Crime Report No. 33 dated 1.6.2001 and proceeded with investigation.Apprehending arrest, the petitioners filed this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail.2. The bail application came up before this Court on 7.6.2001. The learned Public Prosecutor (for short 'P.P.') was directed to procure the case diary within two weeks and meanwhile, it was directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in connection with the said F.I.R. vide order dated 27.6.2001, the matter was adjourned to 5.7.2001 and th...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »