Rajasthan Court February 2002 Judgments
Cit Vs. Agarwal Transformers (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Raj)103
N.N. Mathur, J.The Tribunal, Jaipur, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act has sought opinion of this court on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that generator set falls within the category defined in clause (xiii) of item 10A of Appendix-I of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and as such is eligible for depreciation at the rate of 30 per cent ?'2. The reference application pertains to the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1987-88. The respondent-assessee is a company carrying on the business of re-rolling of stainless steel Pattas through hot and cold process. The assessee claimed depreciation on generator set at the rate of 30 per cent on the basis of item 10A in the depreciation schedule in Appendix-I. In the opinion of the assessing officer the generator set is not run on wind energy as such it is not covered by item at 10A and as such the higher depreciation was not permissibl...
Tag this Judgment!Sarjeet Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN425
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 30.4.1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused appellants for offence Under Section 307/34 I.P.C. but convicted them for offence Under Sections 323 and 325/34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them as under:Conviction Under Section Sentence awarded323 I.P.C. 6 month's R.I.325/34 I.P.C. 2 years' R.I. and a fine of 500/- each in default to further undergo 6 months' R.I.both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It arises in the following circumstances:(i) P.W. 7 Gurdeep Singh gave parcha bayan Ex.P/18 oh 11.1.1986 before ASI Mohan Singh of Police Station, Anoopgarh stating that on 10.1.1986 at about 6.30 p.m. when, he was returning from Ramsinghpur, at that time he went to satisfy the call of nature and from there he was coming towards Railway Station and there both the a...
Tag this Judgment!Chittar Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN634
Jagat Singh, J.1. This is bail application filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C. on behalf of Chittarmal against whom CR. No. 38/2002 of P.S. Makarana has been registered for the offence under Sections 307, 323 & 341 I.P.C.. His anticipatory bail application has been dismissed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbatsar by passing a detailed order dated 11.2.2002.2. learned Counsel submits that according to the injury report 4 injuries were found on the person of Surendra Prasad. Out of them 3 were found simple and blunt in nature. He further submitted that co-accused Rupesh and Rajendra Kumar have already been released on bail by the Sessions Court. He submits that he is resident of Distt. Nagaur having immovable property, therefore, he be granted anticipatory bail.3. Learned P.P. has opposed it.4. Without expressing anything on the merits of the case, looking to the facts and circumstances involved herein, I feel inclined to enlarge the accused applicant on anticipatory bail.5. After considering a...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Wolkem (P) Ltd. Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Raj)303
N.N. Mathur, J.This reference application at the instance of the revenue under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, has been filed seeking direction against the Tribunal, Jaipur, for referring following questions of law for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding in law that the expenditure of Rs. 35,207 incurred for the purchase of T.V. set for the staff was a revenue expenditure 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the expenses of Rs. 1 lakh incurred by the assessee to get extension of mining lease was a revenue expenditure ?'2. The respondent-assessee is a company carrying on the business of manufacturing and trading processed lumps and, powder, etc. During the assessment year 1988-89 in response to a notice under section 143(2) the company produced accounts and other required details. During the scrutiny, it...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Mana and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC606; 2002(4)WLN516
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These appeals are directed against the judgments passed by the learned Single Judge, rejecting the misc. appeals filed by the Union of India which was barred by more than 1302 days. The learned Single Judge did not find the explanation furnished by appellants, could amount to sufficient cause which could have prevented the appellants from filing the appeals in limitation.3. The special appeal was admitted on 1.5.2001 and an interim order was passed, staying the execution of the award.4. In the interest of justice notwithstanding agreeing with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge about the validity of reasons disclosed for rejecting the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we have examined the merit of the order passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Banner in the land reference cases which arose out of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Mewar Oils
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)303
N.N. Mathur, J.Heard Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, learned counsel for the revenue, and Mr. N.M. Rank, senior advocate.2. This reference application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act is filed by the revenue, seeking reference from the order of the Tribunal dated 21-6-1995, for the opinion of this court.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified deleting the entire disallowance of Rs. 8 lakhs in building repairs account by following their earlier order in the case of assessee itself for assessment year 1984-85, which has not been accepted by the department and the Tribunal have proposed reference under section 256(1) vide R.A. No. 251/Jp/1991, dated 19-5-1993 ?'3. The respondent-assessee is a limited company indulged in the manufacture and sale of insecticides and pesticides, the assessee-company claimed expenditure on building repairs at Rs. 14,18,083. The assessing officer disallowed Rs. 8,00,000 out of the claim. Thus, the Commissioner (Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chand Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2439; 2002(2)WLC740; 2002(5)WLN153
Madan, J.1. The facts which are relevant for deciding this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner carries on the business in the name and style of M/s Pooja Traders of which, he is the sole proprietor certificate of which has been issued for carrying on the business of edible oil, ghee, vegetable ghee etc. by Ann. 2.2. As per the prosecution case one Shri Yogendra Joshi, respondent No.2 raided the godowns of the petitioner on 8.8.2001 and seized utensils i.e. containers, tanks, tubs and balance- scales, ceiling machines, deshi ghee, edible oil etc. and registered a case against the petitioner and two others vide FIR No. 133/2001 (Ann. I) for offence under Section 420 IPC and Sections 78 & 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 for short 'the Act of 1958' on the allegation that the petitioner tried to defraud the public and also prepared mis-branded ghee of various brands for sale. Thereafter, seized ghee was sent for analysis to the office of Public Analyst, Jaipur. T...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2002(84)ECC765; 2002(3)WLN445; 2002(3)WLN445
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 31.8.1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra in Sessions Case No. 10/86 by which he while acquitting the accused appellant for the offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act'), convicted him for the offence under Section 17 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one year.2. It arises in the following circumstances;-PW8 Abdul Majid, S.H.O. Police Station Mandli District Barmer lodged FIR Ex.P/11 on 24.1.1986 with the Police Station Mandli District Barmer stating inter-alia that on that day, he alongwith Gomaram, Head Constable (PW4), Gumnaram, Head Constable (PW6), Khet Singh, Constable (PW3) and some other police officials proceeded as per secret information of mukhbir and r...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Singh Patel Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLC62; 2002(5)WLN130
Madan, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. In view of the gravity of charges, departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner Under Rule 16 of CCA Rules by imposing the punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect.3. It is pertinent to mention here that on 3.4.2000, during the pendency of enquiry, the petitioner had admitted his guilt and requested the authorities to take lenient view in the matter as regards the quantum of punishment to be imposed.4. It is under the above circumstances that instead of imposing the penalty of removal from service, lesser punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed which in my view is not open to challenge.5. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he has been acquitted of criminal charges for the offence Under Section 353, 504 IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur, vide order dt. 31.7.1998. In this regard, the decision of ...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Palvarising Mills and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj423; 2002(3)WLC198; 2002(3)WLN681
Garg, J.1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, who are Manufacturers with the prayer that the proceedings of State v. Kumawat Krishi Sewa Kendra and Ors., for the offence punishable under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1968') pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara be quashed.2. It arises in the following circumstances :-On 16.8.1996, a complaint was filed by Shiv Dayal, Insecticide Inspector, Bhilwara in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara against the present petitioners, who are Manufacturers and some other persons. It was stated in the complaint that on 28.7.1994, the Insecticide Inspector Bhilwara inspected the shop of M/s. Kumawat Krishi Sewa Kendra near Charbhuja Mandir Asind (Bhilwara), who was dealer and took sample of the insecticide B.H.C. 10% dust and prepared fard and divided the sample into three parts as required by the law. One of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »