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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ravi Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2608; RLW2003(2)Raj925; 2002(4)WLN234
Joshi, J.1. This criminal appeal by the State has been filed against the judgment dated 7th April, 93 passed by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in criminal original case No. 401/86, by which the accused was acquitted of the charge Under Section 7 read with 17 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short 'the Act' hereinafter), the accused was acquitted mainly on the ground of non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 13(2) of the Act, which was seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.2. The relevant provision of Section 13(2) of the Act runs as follows:-'13(2) : On receipt of the report of the result of analysis under Sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against, persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed Under Section 14-A, forward, i...
Mona Granites P. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: [2004]138STC698(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. By way of this writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing marble slabs and tiles, seeks to quash the notice dated August 6, 2001 (Annexure 3) issued by the second respondent, i.e., Commercial Taxes Officer, Rajsamand, Under Sections 29, 58, 61 and 65 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.2. A test check of records for the period from. 1994-95 to December, 2000 of the Central Excise Department, Rajasthan, revealed that the manufacturing assessees have evaded payment of Central excise duty either by way of clandestine removals or under-valuation or otherwise and consequently, the demands aggregating to Rs. 2,719.27 lakhs (Rs. 27 crore odd) of Central excise duty have been confirmed by the adjudicating authorities of the department. It is also found that a sum of Rs. 6,819.80 lakhs (Rs. 68 crore odd) on account of under-valuation of goods escaped from charging sales tax. Out of 32...
Cit Vs. Govind Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN91(Raj)
1. On an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 30,183 incurred by the assessee for development of land was of revenue nature and not of a capital nature and was, therefore, allowable ?"2. The Income Tax Officer has disallowed Rs. 30,183 out of the aforesaid expenses on the ground that the expenses to that extent were not incidental to the activities carried on by the assessee. On appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has treated this amount as a capital expenditure. In appeal before the Tribunal the Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred in developing the land laying down pipe lines dividing the land into small plots was required to be incurred for the purpose of carrying on the busine...
Cit Vs. Bansiwals Iron and Steel Rolling Mills
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN475(Raj)
ORDEROn an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing depreciation on trucks at the rate of 40 per cent instead of 30 per cent allowed by the Income Tax Officer?'2. None appeared for the assessee. Heard the learned counsel for the revenue.3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the department submits that this issue is covered by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Sardar Stones (1995) 215 ITR 350 wherein it was held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 40 per cent and not 30 per cent as is allowable in case of motor lorries.4. Following the view taken by this court in the case of Sardar Stones (supra), we answer the question in negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.5. The reference so made stands dispo...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahamantri Tonk Zila Van Sangh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR195]; 2002(2)WLC412; 2002(5)WLN184
Madan, J. 1. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is that consequent upon a reference made by the State Government to the Labour Court, it gave its Awarddated 30th September, 2000 in favour of respondent No. 1 workman, by which it was directed that the respondent be reinstated in service of the Forest Department of the State of Rajasthan with continuity in service and also with full backwages. 2. Reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court in the following terms:- 'Whether the Forest Extension Officer, Social Forestry, Malpura, District Tonk was justified in terminating the services of workman Shravan Kumar Sharma son of Shri Ram Lal Sharma, cattle guard on 1.11.98 and if not then what relief can be given to the.workman.'? 3. The workman submitted a claim statement indicating that he was given assignment by the non-petitioners with effect from 1.5.1986 as a daily wage worker and continued to work till his date of removal from service i.e. on 1.1.1998. It was a...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nema and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR538]; RLW2003(1)Raj634; 2003WLC(Raj)UC132
Panwar, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 9th April, 1996 passed by learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') in W.C. Cases No. 2/93 and 1/93, and involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, for convenience, they are disposed of together by a common judgment.2. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of these two appeals are that deceased Arjun Ram and Mohd. Saddiqui were engaged on truck No. RNS 2639 as driver and cleaner respectively in employment of respondent No. 3 Smt. Santosh, owner of the said truck. On 1st January, 1991 the said truck loaded with goods, was plying from Bharatpur to Jaipur. It was driven by its driver Arjun Ram and Mohd. Saddiqui was cleaner of the said truck on the relevant date. When the said truck reached in the area of village Kamalpura, it collided with another truck-troller. Due to this accident, the driver of t...
Municipal Council Vs. Bhagwan Lal Khatri
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3106
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Municipal Council, Pali, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16-12-87 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Pali in Criminal Original Case No. 434/86 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondent for offence under Section 170(II) of the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 1959. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : (i) On 10-8-84 a complaint was filed by Parokar Shri Satya Narayan Joshi in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pali stating that on 27-2-84 the accused-respondent was making construction without permission of the municipality over his land and thus by doing so, he committed the offence punishable under Section 170(ii) of the Act of 1959. The site was inspected by P.W.3 Ganpat Lal in presence of P.W.I Viru Ram and P.W.2 Banshi on. 27-2-84 and Fard Ex.P/1 was prepared by P.W.3 Ganpat Lal on the same day. 3. On 11-4-86, the learned Magistrate read over the contents ...
Sumerpur Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(NULL)322
ORDERB.L. Khatri, A.M.This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, for assessment year 1992-93. The appellant agitated on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessing officer was justified in disallowing the claim of depreciation, gratuity and sales-tax while making adjustment to returned loss under section 143(1)(a). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in holding that the application filed by the appellant under section 154 was rightly rejected. It was submitted before the assessing officer that he was not empowered to make any disallowance/adjustment for the claim made in Income Tax Return. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the assessing officer and held that the assessing officer was entitled to make adjustment/disallowance under section 143(1)(a) for inadmissible claim in the absence of evidence.2. The learned authorised representative submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in h...
Ganga Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN688
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 10.11.1986 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 13/86 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused Bheru Lal, Bheru S/o Amar Singh, Varda, and Smt. Pyari for offence under Sections 147, 323, 342, 366 and 447 I.P.C., but convicted accused appellants Lehru, Lalu, Moti and Ganga Ram for offence under Sections 366, 447, and 342 I.P.C. and also convicted accused appellant Shankar for offence under Section 368 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them as under:Name Offence Sentence awardedLehru 366 I.P.C. 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- Moti each in default to further undergoGangaram 3 months' R.I.Lalu Lehru 342 I.P.C. A fine of Rs. 250/- each in defaultMoti to undergo 1 month's R.I.GangaramLaluLehru 447 I.P.C. A Fine of Rs. 250/- each in defaultMoti to undergo 1 month's R.I. GangaramLaluShankar 368 I.P.C. 4 years' R.I. ...
Assam Roller Flour Mills Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Raj)88
BY THE COURTBy this application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, assessee prayed that Tribunal be directed to refer the following questions for the opinion of this court :(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the learned Income Tax Officer and confirmed by the learned Tribunal are valid, wrong, illegal, and without jurisdiction and being violative on law of land as declared in Calcutta Discount Co. v. ITO : [1961]41ITR191(SC) are violative of article 141 of the Constitution of India (ii) Whether, in facts and in the circumstances of the case, addition of the amount of the remission of customs penalty to the income of the firm Assam Roller Flour Mills by the learned Income Tax Officer under section 148 and confirmed by the learned Tribunal is arbitrary, perverse, wrong illegal incompetent and being in contravention of sections 41(1) and 170(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act and...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »