Rajasthan Court August 2002 Judgments
Marudhar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Raj)253; [2003]259ITR509(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. By this writ petition, the assessee-petitioner has challenged initiation of reassessment proceedings against it for the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 by issuing notices under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on March 29, 1990, on multiplegrounds including that the notices are barred by time and that there exists no material on the basis of which a satisfaction about escapement of income for the relevant assessment years from tax could be reached.2. The case of the assessee-petitioner is that it has not been informed of the reasons which have been recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuing notice, which is a mandatory requirement for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act of 1961. It has been further contended that notices were issued on March 29, 1990, for all the assessment years in question and the writ petition was filed on September 12, 1990. No reply to the writ petition has been filed. However, in ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dinesh Talwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Raj)472; [2004]265ITR344(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the IT 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 correct in applying Rajasthan PWD rates for working out the cost of construction of house property for income-tax purpose, instead of CPWD rates?'2. The assessee, who is an individual, constructed a house property in Malviya Nagar, Jaipur during the accountant period relevant to asst. yr. 1990-91. The Department referred the matter to the Valuation Officer for working out the cost of construction of the property. After receipt of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer, the AO has made an addition of Rs. 1,46,400. While valuing, the Departmental Valuation Officer has applied the rate of CPWD for the purpose of valuation.3. The Tribunal has valued the property adopting the rate of PWD What should be the value of the construction, is basically a question of fact and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj580; 2002(5)WLC922
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner joined defence service in Rajput Regiment on July 8, 1979 as a Sepoy but was discharged on July 23, 1981. Therefore the petitioner got reemployment on July 1, 1983 in Defence Security Corps and was discharged because of invalidation on June 2, 1989. The petitioner in the instant writ petition claims the disability pension.2. On Notice of motion, the respondent have filed their written statement and the board facts have not been denied. It has been placed that while serving in DSC the petitioner was hospitalised on July 7, 1987 and was diagnosed to be suffering from NEUROSIS. On August 30, 1986 the petitioner was involved in a scuffle. The petitioner was thoroughly examined by legally constituted invaliding medical board and it was opined by the Board on May 1, 1989 that the petitioner be invalided out of service due to the following disabilities-(a) Depressie, Neurosis (old) (b) Stab Injury Chest (left) It was further opined by the Medical Board t...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdev and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1680
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Accused-appellants, three in number, under the judgment and order dated 22-5-1998 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1995, State v. Ram Dev and others have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced each to undergo Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. five hundred, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' imprisonment. Having aggrieved of this judgment and order, the accused appellants are before the Court by this appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C., 1973.2. On the oral report by one Kedar Lal son of Mathura Lal (PW-9), First Information Report has been chalked out against the accused-appellants and five others for the commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302, IPC and a Criminal Case No. 210/94 was registered at the Police Station, Lakheri, District Bundi on 26th of December, 1994 at 3.30 a.m.3. After investigation in the matter police filed chall...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1228; 2002(4)WLN677
Arun Kumar, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of delay. The selection process was completed in the year 1998-99. It was challenged by the petitioner in the year 2001 by filing a writ petition in which the petitioner/appellant had set up a case that he had a degree from a university, which ought to have been accepted as a recognised degree and, therefore, the petitioner was eligible and ought to have been considered. Be that as it may, when the selection process was over in the year 1998-99 it could not have been challenged in the year 2001.2. In our view the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited before us a judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Smt. Chanda Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1), decided on 2nd August, 2001. However, following decisi...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Manager Rsrtc and anr. Vs. Smt. Kamla and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN350
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, feeling aggrieved by an Award dated 26.3.2002, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur.2. It is not in dispute that on 9.8.1999, the deceased Pemaram, while on his two-wheeler, met with an accident on Osian to Jodhpur road and was fatally injured. The respondent No. 8--Shanker Lal is said to be the Driver of the bus No. RJ-19 P-4102 belonging to the appellant and, consequently, a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed against the appellants and the respondent No. 8, Shanker Lal, with the allegation that Shanker Lal was responsible for causing the accident, on account of his rash and negligent driving of the bus. Respondent No. 1--Smt. Kamla is the widow of the deceased and respondents No. 2 to 5 are their minor kids. Respondent No. 6 Rugaram is the father and respondent No. 7--Smt. Kanu is the mother of the deceased. The deceased was aged 37 ye...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sunita Gupta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC163
M.R. Calla, J.1. The appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The learned Single Judge has considered the factum of accident and it is also an admitted position that the deceased Ashok Kumar Gupta was 36 years of age at the time of accident, was working as Manager in the J.K. Cement. His total emoluments were Rs. 23,969/-. Multiplier of 14 has been applied and on that basis after taking note of the dependency, the compensation has been granted.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in the total emoluments of deceased Ashok Kumar Gupta, certain items e.g. allowances, reimbursement of conveyance expenses etc. could not be included. Even if it is accepted that such minor items should not have been included, we find that it is not a fit case for interference and there is no question of challenge to the compensation awarded unless there is sufficient reason. There is no force in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. The ad...
Tag this Judgment!Aunti Ram Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj560; 2003(1)WLC635; 2003(1)WLN449
Goyal, J.1. This S.B. Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 11.6.2002 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar set aside the order dated 18.1.2002 whereby the learned ACJM, Rajgarh, District Alwar took cognizance against the five accused persons including the accused respondent No. 2 Ramesh Chand for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 302 read with Section 149 IPC.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the complainant- petitioner submitted a written report at concerned police station on 19.10.2001 with the averments that on account of some quarrel between the children, the accused persons had developed enmity with Ramprasad and at about 2.30 p.m. on 19.10.2001, the accused persons named in the F.I.R., inflicted a number of injuries to Ramprasad with lathis. Accused Rambharosi, Ramesh Chand and Shri Chandra with an intention to kill, inflicted lathi blow on the head of the Ramprasad and Ramprasad has been taken to the hospital in se...
Tag this Judgment!Ganganagar Sahakari Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Raj)107
By the CourtThe assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 1,15,102 holding that the gross total income of the appellant-assessee after giving set off to the brought forward losses and investment allowance, works out to be negative, as such, the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) was not allowable. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed deduction under section 80P(2)(d) to the assessee observing that the same is allowable irrespective of whether the income is positive or negative. The Tribunal in the impugned order expressed that the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) cannot be allowed to the assessee, as the gross total income has been assessed by the assessing officer at nil. This court in CIT v. Vishnu Oil & Dal Mills has held that for computing the special deduction allowable under heading 'C' Chapter VI-A in respect of any income of the nature specified in that section, notwithstanding anything contained in section 80P(2)(d) , the amount of income of that nature as computed in accordance...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN63
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 13.12.2000 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned transfer order dated 10.8.2000 (Annex. 4) passed by the respondent No. 5 Dy. Secretary. Medical and Health Department, Jaipur by which the petitioner was transferred from Medical College, Bikaner to Medical College, Ajmer and the respondent No. 3 Dr. Megh Raj Bardiya was transferred from Medical College, Ajmer to Medical College, Bikaner and the order dated 30.11.2000 (Annex. 6) passed by the respondent No. 4 Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner and the petitioner be allowed to work in Medical College, Bikaner.2. It arises in the following circumstances:The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Medical Officer on 5.9.1990 and, the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »