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.
Cit Vs. Girdhari Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Raj)92
ORDERLow gross profit rate accepted by assessing officer after making proper enquiryCatch Note:Where assessment had not been made in haste and after making the necessary enquiries for assessing the income of assessee, some additions were made, it cannot be said that the order of the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue--Therefore, merely low profit shown by the assessee does not in itself render order of assessing officer as erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue.Ratio:Where assessment had not been made in haste and after making the necessary enquiries for assessing the income of assessee, some additions were made, it cannot be said that the order of the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue--Therefore, merely low profit shown by the assessee does not in itself render order of assessing officer as erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue.Held:When the assessing officer after going thr...
Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2013; 2002(83)ECC384; 2002(2)WLC749
Sharma, J.1. In brief the prosecution case is that on 16.6.1999 at 11 AM, PW3 Rajesh Chaudhary, Sub Inspector informed PW6 Shri Rajendra Singh. SHO, Kotwali that one person named Ayub aged about 30 years having a country made 'katta' with him was waling near Namak Mandi, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur Having received information, the SHO recorded the information in Rojnamamcha, Ex.P. 14A) and then he along with police personnel's proceeded to Kishanpole Bazar in a Government vehicle. The SHO then secured the presence of motbirs. Thereafter, the police party encircled the accused and apprehended him. The SHO gave the accused a notice (Ex.Pl) under Section 50 of the Act and informed him of his legal right to have his search conducted either in the presence of a gazetted officer of the police departmentor of any other department or in the presence of a judicial Magistrate. The accused gave his consent in writing that his search be conducted by the SHO himself. Thereafter, the SHO got conducted ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: [2002]255ITR599(Raj)
N.N. Mathur J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated February 28, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs. 7,88,848 with respect to the bad debt for the assessment year 1987-88.2. This court admitted the appeal on the following question of law :'Whether after the Finance Act, 1985, amending the provisions of Section 36(l)(vii) and Section 36(2) with effect from April 1,1985, inserting a proviso to Section 36(l)(vii) and Clause (v) to Section 36(2), claims under sections 36(l)(vii) and 36(l)(viia) are separate and distinct ?'3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee, the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., is a scheduled bank governed by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The Assessing Officer assessed the income of the respondent-assessee for the assessment year 1985-86 on the income of Rs. 1...
Girdhar Gopal Saini Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR905]
Madan, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was initially appointed on 2.11.78 on a permanent post at State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch Srimadhopur, District Sikar. Since the date of appointment he continuously worked for 162 days but without any notice and all of a sudden he was orally not permitted to mark his signature on the attendance register with effect from 21.1.1979.3. It is further the petitioner's case that during the whole of the above period, the petitioner worked to the best of his ability and there was no complaint against him. Thereafter the petitioner was again appointed in the respondent-Bank in 1988 and he worked till 11.8.90 but thereafter he was retrenched from service without any notice. It is also the petitioner's case that prior to his retrenchment no seniority list was published by the respondent and after that persons junior to the petitioner were appointed. Ultimately, the petition...
Raj Kumar Vs. Mst. Shanta Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2894; II(2002)DMC368; 2002(2)WLC522; 2002(2)WLN638
Garg, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the husband-pelitioner against the judgment dated 14.6.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh in Criminal Revision No. 22/98 by which the learned Sessions Judge enhanced the maintenance of the respondent-wife to Rs. 400/- per month in place of Rs. 250 and maintenance of her children to Rs. 250/- each per month in place of Rs. 150/-each per month awarded by additional Chief Judicial, Kapasan by order dated 11.3.98.2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are as follows:(i) The non-petitioner Smt. Shanta Bai who is wife of petitioner-husband filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan on 22.2.96 inter alia stating that their marriage took place on 30.6.90 and because of that marriage, two daughters were born and for maintenance of herself and for her children, she claimed maintenance.3. The petitioner-husband filed a reply and...
Samartha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC135; 2002(3)WLC178; 2002(2)WLN641
Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant against the order dated 13.11.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jalore in Sessions Case No. 79/2001 by which he rejected the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by APP.2. It arises in the following circumstances:-On the report of the complainant petitioner Samartharam, FIR No. 59/2001 was registered at Police Station Sayala District Jalore on 17.5.2001 and after investigation police submitted challan for the offence under Section 306 IPC against only one accused Rawataram, who is husband of deceased.After recording of statements of ten prosecution witnesses, the learned APP filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the trial court with the prayer that cognizance against Kheta, Natha, Teja, Panna, Bhura, Manna, Soni wife of Bhura and wife of Manna be also taken for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and they be summoned as additional accused. The said ...
Guman Singh Barath Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC544; 2002(2)WLN663
Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.9.1996 (Annx.6), by which petitioner, an Officer of the Rajasthan Administrative Service cadre, has been put under suspension, being involved in a criminal case.2.. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner remained posted as the Sub-Divisional Officer cum Land Conversion Officer, Jodhpur from 12.9.91 to 31.3.1992. It transpired that during that period, seventy-eight files of his office were found missing and forty-eight files therefrom were recovered. In all those cases, orders of conversion of land from agriculture to residential had been passed on 23.11.89 by some another officer, i.e. predecessor-in-office of the petitioner. In some cases Pattas had been issued on 20.3.92 & 30.3.92, i.e. during the period when petitioner was posted there. These Pattas purported to have been signed by the petitioner. In this respect, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated agains...
Ramswaroop and anr. Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN430
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.4.1981 passed in Civil Suit No. 33/1979.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Bank filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 13,156.15 against the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The defendant No. 1 is the borrower, got the loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff-Bank which was sanctioned as back as on 3.7.1976 by the plaintiff-Bank. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 gave guarantees for repayment of the above amount. The loan amount was not paid either by the borrower nor by the guarantors, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit on 1.6.1976 before the Trial Court for recovery of the aforesaid amount along with interest. The written statement was filed by defendant No. 1 denying the liability. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, who were the guarantors, submitted separate written statement. The Trial Court recorded statement of the defendant under Order 10 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 1.5.1980...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Surana Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLC598; 2002(4)WLN142
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This revision raises two issues : (i) firstly, whether the process of converting dolomite into powder by grinding and making chips out of it amounts to process of manufacture so as to bring out any new commercial commodity so as to fall within the definition of manufacture under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.(ii) The other controversy is whether the grinding of marble into powder result in bringing new commercial commodity distinct from marble which can be considered as manufacture within the meaning of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.3. The answer to these questions would determine whether the respondent-assessee is engaged in manufacture unit of goods to make it eligible to avail the benefit of the Sales tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987 notified under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.4. The District Level Screening Committee rejected the claim of the respondent to treat both the activities as manufacture within the meaning of...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Vallabh Das
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Raj)429
1. On an application filed under Section 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court : 1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunalwas justified in holding that the market value of the property 'Himanshu Bhawan' should be determined by applying a multiple of 10 to the net annual value ?' 2. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction of Rs. 50,000 from the fair market value of 'Himanshu Bhawan' on account of declaration made by the assessee under Section 3(1) r/w Section 13 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 ?' 2. The assessee is individual. The relevant assessment years are 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75, The assessee inter alia owns property known as 'Himanshu Bhawan', Jaipur. The WTO has adopted the value of this property on the basis of report of the Valuation Officer. The WTO...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »