Rajasthan Court February 2002 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.
Cgt Vs. Nizamuddin
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)306
By the Court This is an application under section 26(3) of the Gift Tax Act, at the instance of the revenue seeking reference on the following question. Question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal Jaipur Bench dated 30-5-1989 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that transfer of immovable properties by the assessee to his minor sons, specifically for the purpose of their education, was not in the nature of gift in view of Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in CGT v. N. Jothi Kumar : [1986]157ITR785(Mad) without considering the facts of the two cases in detail(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of Commissioner of Gift Tax (Appeals) even though he did not decide the point of valuation of the property as specifically mentioned in para 6. 1 of his order.'2. The brief facts leading to the instant reference application are that the Commissioner ...
Cit Vs. Keshav Kray Vikray Sahkari Samiti Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN801(Raj)
ORDERThis is a reference application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking direction to call the reference from the Tribunal on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who has relied upon Supreme Court's ruling in the case of CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. : [1971]82ITR452(SC) without considering the facts of the two cases ?'2. It is not in dispute that the said question stand answered by the Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Keshav Kray Vikray Sahkari Samiti Ltd. .3. In view of this, no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The reference application is rejected....
Salag Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN528
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.1.1996, by which claim of the appellant that as per Sub-rule (1) of Rule 56 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Rules, 1951'), he should not have been retired on 31st August, 1983 and the respondents should have accorded him all consequential benefits has been rejected.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 1.8.1950 and his date of birth was 1.9.1929. He was given retirement on attaining the age of 55 years vide order dated 15.5.1984 with effect from 31.8.1984. Appellant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied, filed writ petition on various grounds which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 25.1.1996. Hence this appeal.3. The controversy involved in this case lies in a very narrow compass as to whether the appellant, whose date of birth is 1.9.1929, after attaini...
Noor Mohammed Vs. Satish Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLC87; 2002(3)WLN530
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. These appeals have been filed against the order dated 14.2.2001 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals No. 1553/1999 and 1654/1999 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by which the appeals have been dismissed being time-barred by 1625 days having shown no sufficient cause.2. The matter originated from the proceedings under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the victims of the accident filed Claim Petitions No. 480/1989 and 482/1989 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Tribunal issued notices to the appellant as well as other parties. Inspite of service, the appellant did not enter appearance and he was proceeded ex-parte. After hearing the other parties, the Award was made on 13.2.1995 in both, the claim petitions. Appellant preferred first appeals against the said Award, which have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.2.2001 being hopelessly time barred and not showing any sufficient cause. ...
Multi Metals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: [2002]254ITR652(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on interpretation of Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the learned Tribunal was right in law in not allowing deduction of an amount of Rs. 11,53,294 representing the written down value of assets transferred by the assessee-company from the business use to that of scientific research used in the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1980-81 as expenditure on scientific research ?'2. The assessee-company derives income from sale and manufacture of rubes, print rolls, etc. The relevant assessment year is 1980-81. The brief facts in the return filed by the assessee are that the assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 11,53,294 incurred under the head 'Capital' as expenditure relatable to scientific research. This amount included a sum of Rs. 11,14,885 which represen...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ram Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC520
Misra, J.1. The appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'RSRTC') has assailed the award dated 28.8.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur by which a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded towards compensation for a grave injury, suffered by the respondent No. l Ram Lal, which is loss of his right hand. Since the quantum of compensation is not under challenge, the facts relevant in this regard need no reiteration.2. The principal ground of challenge to the impugned award is that the appel-lant-RSRTC should not be held liable to indemnify the claimant-respondent No. 1 since the driver of the RSRTC who driving the Bus, was not at fault. In this regard the manner of the accident has been elaborated by learned counsel for the appellant Shri Virendra Agrawal, who gave a graphic picture of the accident and has stated that the truck coming from the opposite direction, was carrying iron angles which were projecting beyond the body area of the truck and s...
Ram Kumar Vs. Shanker Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj99; 2002(3)WLC483; 2002(2)WLN607
Tatia, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order of the trial court dated 30.8.2001 by which the learned trial court dismissed injunction application of the plaintiff-appellant.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for partition with respect to the property of one Shri Badridas. How it alleged to have come to the share of the plaintiff is having a chequered history as per the facts of the case. It is stated that Badridas Daga was having immovable properties mentioned in Schedule -'ka' annexed to the plaint. Badridas Daga executed a Will on 16.9.1962. After death of Badridas, Badridas's wife Smt. Chanda Bai, Badridas's brother Ramnath Daga, Ramnath's son Shankerlal presented an application for grant of probate before this Court, upon which the High Court granted probate by order dated 29.10.1968. As per the probate. Smt. Chanda Bai, Ramnath Daga and Shankerlal were appointed as executors as per the provisions of the Will. It was also provided...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Girnar Construction Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Raj)248; [2003]261ITR463(Raj)
1. The appeal was admitted in terms of the following questions :'1. Whether the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) are applicable in the present matter where the salaries/payments were made to the close relatives of partners of the assessee-firm ?2. Whether the Assessing Officer is bound to admit the entries made in the cash books even if their genuineness is doubted and further is it necessary for the Assessing Officer to first reject the cash books, purchase vouchers and expenses bills, etc., even if he disagrees with the same for the purpose of making addition or for rejecting the claim of the assessee-firm ?3. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in its wisdom to allow the claim of Rs. 2,13,000 on account of depreciation in new bodies even if the bills for the same were not produced and in spite of it expenditure written on letter head that too without any sales tax number on it was produced ?4. Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Income-tax Appella...
Rahul Bhatia Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas641(Raj)
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The petitioner preferred this revision petition under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the order dated September 11, 2001, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots) Mini Secretariat, Jaipur City, Jaipur in criminal complaint No. 401 of 2001 (Mrs. Renu Gupta v. Rahul Bhatia). This revision petition comes up before this court on October 1, 2001. This court vide order dated October 1, 2001, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, treated this revision petition as a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a sub-broker in the share market of Jaipur and was managing his own office in 218, Shop No. 5, Ramgali No. 1, Raja Park, Jaipur in the name and style of Vinayak Investments, Jaipur. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 62,000 by account payee cheques to the complainant against the amount due. ...
Jagdish Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2171
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 4-2-1997 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 2/95, by which he dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 22-4-1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 7723/94 by which he convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner in the following manner :-----------------------------------------------------------------Name of accused Convicted under Sentencepetitioner section awarded----------------------------------------------------------------Jagdish 120-B, IPC Three years RI and to paya fine of Rs. 500/-, indefault of payment of fine,to further undergo SI forthree months.471, IPC Three years RI and to pay afine of Rs. 500/-, in defaultof payment of fine, to furtherundergo SI for three months.204, IPC One year RI and to pay a fineof Rs. 200/-, in def...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »