Rajasthan Court August 2002 Judgments
Cit Vs. Sangam Cinema
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN1(Raj)
ORDEROn all 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 ITAT was right in treating cinema building as Plant and consequently allowing higher depreciation ?'2. Heard learned counsel for the revenue. None appeared for the assessee.3. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the revenue submits that now issue in this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Anand Theatres : [2000]244ITR192(SC) , wherein their Lordships have taken the view that any building, specially designed cannot be treated as plant.4. Following the view taken by their Lordships in the case of Anand Theatres (supra), we are of the view that the Tribunal has Committed error in treating the cinema building as plant.5. In the result, we answer the question proposed in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against th...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1618; [2002(94)FLR993]
ORDERO.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 11-11-1991 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raising-nagar whereby the appellant Lal Chand has been found guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and for non-payment of fine Additional simple imprisonment for 2 months has been awarded.2. According to the prosecution story, the accused during the night intervene 21st and 22nd December, 1988 at about 11.30 p.m. went to the house of PW. 1 Ram Lal situated in Rawala Mandi. Ram Lal, who earns livelihood by plying a jeep was away and his wife PW. 4 Sunder Devi was sleeping in the house along with her three kids. The accused knocked at the gate on the pretext that he has to deliver the keys and when the gate was opened by PW/4 Sunder Devi, he effected his entry in the house and pounced upon Smt. Sunder Devi. He tied a towel forcibly around her ...
Tag this Judgment!SatyanaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Vimladevi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN465
Arun Madan, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an order dated 19.9.2000 of the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 4, Jaipur City Jaipur in Civil Misc. Appln. No. 298/2000 (Old No. 166/98) in civil suit No. 227/2000 whereby application under Section 151, CPC filed by defendants (petitioners) was rejected.2. Facts relevant for the present revision petition are summerised thus, Shantidevi alongwith her son Narendra Kumar instituted a civil suit No. 8/96 (renumbered as 494/96) on 2.1.1996 before the Addl. Civil Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, seeking perpetual injunction besides a relief that Vimla Devi and Others defendants including the present petitioners be restrained from putting any channel gate or raising any wall or creating any hinderance in free use of passage and Baramada (Ikdara) shown as ABC in a map (Annex.1) annexed to the plaint. Alongwith that suit, temporary injunction application registered as Misc. Appln. No. 262/96 was also filed, to which reply was filed by the present petit...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Narbada Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN357
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. These two appeals have been filed by the National Insurance Company against an Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali dated 1.3.2002.2. The claim petitions were opposed by the Insurance Company, apart from other grounds, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle Kuldeep Singh was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident.3. Issue No. 6 was raised on this objection of the appellant. The licence purported to be issued by the Licensing Authority, Regional Transport Office, Raipur (M.P.) was alleged to be a forged one and upon enquiry of the appellant, the said Licensing Authority had sent a communication to the effect that the licence in question was never issued by the said office.4. The said communication was produced in the Court and in order to prove the same, process was issued to summon one P. Ekka, who was the Regional Transport Officer, Raipur (M.P.). On 5.1.2002, the court ordered that the case was old and an opportunity t...
Tag this Judgment!Dalu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC330
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. The five appellants--Dalu, Prabhu, Deva, Uda and Smt. Chandi have preferred this appeal against a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, dated 25.4.1986, whereby the appellants were found guilty under Sections 148, 325/149 and 304 Part-II read with Section 149 of the IPC. For the offence under Section 148 of the IPC, each one has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years. For the offence under Section 325/149, IPC, three years' rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 100/- and additional simple imprisonment for one month, in lieu of fine, has been awarded. Seven years' rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 100/- and additional simple imprisonment for one month each, in lieu of fine, has been awarded for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II, IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC. Principal sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The incident allegedly occurred on 3.10.1981, at 6 P.W., in the territory of village Chogavadi, abo...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLN672
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 31.7.2002 with a prayer that order dated 29.7.2002 (Annex. 4) passed by the Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D. Division 1st, Pali (respondent No. 2) by which the previous transfer order dated 25.7.2002 (Annex. 1) was cancelled be quashed and set aside.2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:(i) That the petitioner was working on the post of Helper Grade-III at Jal Praday Yojana at Bhuryasani from where he was transferred to Jal Praday Yojana at Jetpur with immediate effect on 25.7.2002. A copy of order dated 25.7.2002 passed by the A. En., PHED. Dist. Sub-Division Rohit is marked an Annex. 1.(ii) That in pursuance of order dated 25.7.2002 (Annex. 1), the petitioner was relieved by the J.En., PHED Sub-Division Rohit vide order dated 26.7.2002 (Annex. 2).(iii) That in compliance of transfer from Bhuryasani to Jetpur,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hemraj Udyog
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR420(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 justified in holding that the order under Section 263, dated. March 19, 1991, was barred by limitation and consequently cancelling the order under Section 263 ?'2. In the case in hand, the original assessment was completed on December 16, 1988. While framing the assessment, the assessee was granted deduction under Section 32AB at the rate of 20 per cent, of the book profits. As the asses-see was aggrieved on certain additions/disallowances made in the original order, he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Out of three grounds taken before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), two grounds were rejected and on the third ground regarding depreciation, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) remanded the matter back to th...
Tag this Judgment!Jagmit Kaur and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC462; 2004ACJ1260; 2003(1)WLC427; 2003(2)WLN180
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.3.1994 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Civil Misc. Case No. 48 of 1989, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by appellants-claimants (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants'). Aggrieved by the judgment and award impugned, the claimants have preferred this appeal.2. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this appeal are that a claim petition for compensation was filed by the claimants before the Tribunal claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 19,75,000, inter alia, stating therein that on 29.10.1988 at 11.30 a.m., Charanjeet Singh, aged about 28 years was proceeding on a bicycle towards Sukhadia Circle, Sri Ganganagar, at that relevant time, a jeep bearing No. RNL 3214 came from behind, which was driven at a great speed, rashly and negligently by its driver, ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jorawar Bai Vs. Additional Civil Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLN1
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Guridia-Kala Panchayat Samiti Dug, District Jhalawar on 31.1.2002.2. Election petition has been filed by Smt. Labhu Bai before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jhalawar who set-aside the election of the petitioner vide its order dated 16.4.2002 holding that on recounting the petitioner secured 621 votes and the defeated candidate Smt. Labhu Bai secured 622 votes. Consequently, Smt. Labhu Bai declared elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Guridia-Kala Panchayat Samiti Dug, District Jhalawar.3. The petitioner challenged this order dated 16.4.2002 in this writ petition and submitted that election took place on 31.1.2000 and on the same day the result was also declared by the respondents No. 2, District Election Officer and the Returning Officer and the petitioner was declared elected Sarpanch. Petitioner secured 623 votes and 100 votes were rejected declared Sarpanch, charge was taken over by her on 4th a...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Hemraj Udyog
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)544
By the CourtOn 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 justified in holding that the order under section 263, dated 19-3-1991, was barred by limitation and consequently cancelling the order under section 263 ?'2. In the case in hand, original assessment was completed on 16-12-1988. While framing the assessment, the assessee was granted deduction under section 32AB at the rate of 20 per cent of the book profits. As assessee was aggrieved on certain additions/disallowances made in the original order, he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Out of these grounds taken before the Commissioner (Appeals), two grounds were rejected and on the third ground regarding depreciation, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration. Following t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »