Rajasthan Court July 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.
Jabar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ596
ORDERHarbans Lal, J.1. These four criminal misc. petitions have been filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay in the trial of these cases. As the ground taken in all these cases is common and all the cases are pending in the same Court and the arguments are also identical, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.2. All these four petitions arise from a criminal regular case pending in the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat and all these cases pertain to offence under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PFA Act'). A perusal of the order sheets in these cases reveals that there was no objection raised from the side of accused petitioners to the adjournments made in these cases at any point of time and it cannot be said that due to the delay any prejudice has been caused to the accused petitioners in their defence.3. I have heard the learned ...
Harshvardhan Chemicals and Minerals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)75; [2002]256ITR767(Raj)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated December 24, 1999, on a miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The appellant is a public limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The relevant assessment year is 1990-91. On May 31, 1995, the Tribunal has decided the appeal in I. T. A. No. 1122/ JP of 1994. Thereafter, the miscellaneous application has been moved for rectification of the order under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The application has been rejected by the Tribunal holding that as to how the miscellaneous application can be allowed on December 24, 1999. As four years have expired, therefore, no mistake, in the appeal order, can be rectified.3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 254 reads as under :'The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mis...
H.M. Pareek Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)309; [2002]257ITR790(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no deduction is allowable from the incentive bonus received by the Development Officers of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as incentive bonus is a part of salary ?'The assessee is a salaried employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the LIC' for short). In addition to the salary from the Life Insurance Corporation, the assessee received 'incentive bonus' of Rs. 1,15,106 from the Life Insurance Corporation. The assessee claimed deduction at 40 per cent. on the amount of this incentive bonus as estimated expenses for earning such incentive bonus. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee.2. In appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Deputy Commissioner ...
Bheruram Ratanlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR795(Raj)
1. On an application filed 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, the Tribunal was right in holding that on filing of the revised return distribution of enhanced profits is required for continuance of partnership firm as registered under Section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee has claimed the status of a registered firm for which a declaration under Section 184(7) was filed along with the original return of income. In the original return, the income declared was Rs. 21,060. Subsequently, the assessee has filed the revised return on November 28, 1979, and in the revised return, it has declared the income of Rs. 40,625. The admitted fact is that no books of account are maintained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has refused to grant registration to the firm of the assessee on the ground that there being no books...
Rajasthan Cylinders and Containers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR95(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-company was not entitled to carry forward of loss computed for the assessment year 1985-86 ?' 2. The assessee is a limited company. The assessee-company claims to have made an application in Form No. 6 for extension of time on June 28, 1985, for filing the return which was due to be filed on June 30, 1985. In the application, the time sought was uptill September 30, 1985. In the return, the assessee has shown a loss of Rs. 25,82,740. The assessment was however completed computing total loss of Rs. 9,71,561. The business loss was only Rs. 8,095 while the depreciation to be carried forward was Rs. 9,55,371. The Income-tax Officer did not allow to carry forward the loss determined, while making the assessment on the ground that the returns were not filed on or before the due date. The C...
Ram Bhawan Dharamshala Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR725(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that even if the assessee-trust is assumed to be a valid charitable trust at the inception, in any case, it ceased to be a charitable trust, as it indirectly carried on a profit earning activity by having let out the first floor to a firm in which one of the trustees was a partner and, therefore, it was not entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'None appeared for the assessee. Heard Mr. Singhi, learned counsel for the Revenue.2. The relevant assessment year is 1969-70. A trust was created by one Shri Ramchander Johari vide trust deed dated November 8, 1962. The assessee-trust claimed exemption under Sections 11 and 12 the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer refused the exemption on various grounds includin...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Mahendra Joshi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR595]; (2003)ILLJ256Raj; RLW2003(3)Raj1996; 2003(1)WLC47
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved with the award of Labour Court as modified by the judgment of learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1301/2000. 2. The facts of the case are that the services of respondent-workman were terminated w.e.f. October 16, 1985. The workman raised an industrial dispute alleging that he has actually worked in 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination for 229 days excluding the paid holidays and Sundays. 3. He also alleged that while terminating his services a person junior to him was allowed to continue in service and the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have also not been followed by way of giving a notice of one month before termination of services or one months remuneration in lieu of such notice and retrenchment compensation. 4. In substance the termination was alleged to be in violation of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. The ap...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hans Kanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1959; 2003(1)WLC286
Panwar, J.1. These two appeal raise common question of law and facts are directed against the judgment and award dt. 21.10.1995 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 7,75000/- in favour of the appellants in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 31/96 who were claimants before the Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants').2. Aggrieved by the judgment and award impugned, the insurance company as well as claimants preferred the aforesaid two appeals.3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award impugned as also the record of the Tribunal.4. It is contended by the learned counsel the insurance company that the deceased Ugam Singh himself was contributory negligent for the accident in question. He contended that on 10.4.1990 at about 2.00 P.M. while deceased Ugam Singh and Parbat Singh were proceeding from Sanderao to Sumerpur on a motorcycle, th...
NaraIn Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2597
Garg, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 7.10.1991 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 3.10.1991 (Annex.6) passed by the respondent No. 2- Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur by which the petitioner was removed from service be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.2. It arises in the following circumstances:-The petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk/Store Munshi on work-charged basis in Public Health Engineering Department and, thereafter, he was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on regular basis with effect from 1.4.1971. He was, thereafter, promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk vide order dated 7.3.1980, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 1. A charge-sheet dated 20.12.1975 (Annex.2) was served on the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification,...
Bheruram Ratanlal Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN138(Raj)
ORDERThe assessee has claimed the status of a registered firm for which a declaration under section 184(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed along with the original return of income. In the original return, income declared was Rs. 21,060. Subsequently, the assessee has filed the revised return on 28-11-1979 and in the revised return, he has declared the income of Rs. 40,625. The admitted fact is that no books of account are maintained by the assessee. The assessing officer has refused to grant the registration to the firm of the assessee on the ground that there being no books of account and no evidence as to whether the enhanced profits were distributed amongst the partners in accordance with the declaration filed under section 184(7) of the Act, the assessee is not entitled to continue the registration of the firm.2. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has allowed the appeal holding that once the partners have certified for distr...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »