Rajasthan Court July 2003 Judgments
Chiman Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2079; 2003(4)WLC688
Joshi, J.1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 20th June, 2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhim in criminal case No. 434/2002 'State v. Chiman Singh', whereby the application Under Section 320 Cr.P.C. was rejected on the ground that the offence Under Section 498A IPC is not compoundable and the case was fixed for recording the evidence on 10.7.2003.2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sandeep Saruparia that the matter has been compromised and an application for permission to compound the offence Under Section 498A IPC was submitted before the trial Court and such application ought to have been accepted and accused should have been acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He has therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside as it is incorrect, illegal and improper.3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.4. Section ...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.S. Investment Corpn. (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN279(Raj)
ORDEROn an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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 law in holding that the interest on amount advanced to M/s. Citric India Ltd., Bombay, as per the agreement letter dated 27-7-1965; had accrued to the assessee-company following the mercantile system of accounting ?'2. The assessee-company agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 to M/s. Citric India Ltd. @ 12 per cent interest per annum, but assessee failed to advance full amount of Rs. 20.00,000, under the agreement. The borrowing company raised an objection regarding non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the agreement as assessee has not advanced full amount of Rs. 20,00,000 as per agreement. It fall short of Rs. 3,00,000. The assessee thereafter has also advanced some more amount in the year 1967. As no interest has been received, therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chand Lunia Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN48(Raj)
ORDERHeard learned counsel for the parties on application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The following questions are proposed :'1. Whether, on a true and correct interpretation of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,06,36,909 as undisclosed investment made by the petitioner 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any relevant and cogent material before it to hold that the petitioner was the 'owner' of the silver bars to enable application of section 69A of the Act 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the burden had been correctly placed by the Tribunal on the assessee and whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the burden stood discharged leading to the applicability of the provisions of section 69A of the Act 4. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,06,36,909 made by the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pal Chouhan Vs. Marwar GramIn Bank and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2695; 2004(1)WLC302
GARG, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 22.7.1996 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 8th August, 1995 (Annex. I) passed by the Disciplinary Authority of Marwar Gramin Bank (for short 'The Bank') by which after holding the petitioner guilty of all the seven charges framed against him, penalty of dismissal from service under the provisions of Regulation 30(1)(f) of the Marwar Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations of 1980') was imposed upon the petitioner, though Enquiry Officer through Enquiry Report Annex. 20 dated 16.1.1995 found the charges No. 2,3 and 4 proved against the petitioner, but he did not find the charges No. 1,4,5 and 7 proved against the petitioner and the appellate order dated 28.12.1995 (Annex.2) passed by the Chairman, Marwar Gramin Bank (respondent No. 2) by which the appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Choturam Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj104; 2003(4)WLC657
K.C. Sharma, J.1. This criminal appeal by accused Choturam arises out of the judgment and order dated 3.2.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura (Jaipur), by which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge having found the prosecution story as alleged true and charges having proved beyond doubt, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated below:Under Section 302 IPC Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 201 IPC Seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default thereof, to further undergo 5 days simple imprisonment.Under Section 377 IPC Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo 15, days simple imprisonment.2. The present case solely rests on circumstantial evidence. As per the prosecution, PW 1 Ganga Charan Yadav lodged written report, Ex.P1 at Police Station Virat Nagar, Jaipur on 25.7.97 at 11.30 AM with rega...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1126; 2004(1)WLC285
Garg, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents on 18.11.98 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent be directed to consider the petitioner's candidature for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III in pursuance of advertisement dtd. 24.4.97 (Annex.1) with all consequential benefits.2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:-i) That the respondent No. 3 (Dist. Education Officer (Boys), Pali) published and advertisement dtd. 24.4.97 (Annex. 1) for certain posts of Teacher Grade III.ii) Further case of the petitioners is that the petitioner belong to Other Backward Class which is evident from the certificate (Annex.2 and 3).iii) That the petitioner No. 1 passed his Secondary School Examination in the year 1998 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajas-than, Ajmer. A copy of the mark-sheet of Secondary Examination is marked as Annex...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Lal Patni Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1519; 2004(1)WLC298
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents on 02.07.2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to make payment of unutilised privilege leave for 159 days to the petitioner with all consequential benefits and with interest @ 24% p.a. on the said amount and penal interest w.e.f. 08.11.1995.2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:i) That the petitioner while working on the post of Senior Reader in the office of respondent No. 3 (The District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, Distt. Chittorgarh) was retired compulsorily under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, 'the Rules, 1951) vide order dated 6/8.11.1995.ii) That further case of the petitioner is that after the compulsory retirement he was paid all retiral benefits but was not paid the payment of unutilised privilege leave which...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: [2005]274ITR640(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 256, the Tribunal was directed to refer the following question for the opinion of this court :--'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 273(2)(a) of Rs. 46,416 notwithstanding the fact that R. A. under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the hon'ble High Court on the quantum issue has been filed and the decision of which is pending ?'2. In pursuance of the direction, the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid question for the opinion of this court. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submits that in the quantum of appeal, the entire addition has been deleted, therefore, no base remains for sustaining the penalty.3. Learned counsel for the Department prays for time to verify this fact. Five to six opportunities were given and the reference was adjourned, but he has failed to controvert the facts submitted by learned counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Cosmopolitan Trading Corpn.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN52(Raj)
ORDEROn an application under section 256(2), the Tribunal was directed to refer the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 273(2)(a) of Rs. 46,416 notwithstanding the fact that R.A. under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Hon'ble High Court on the quantum issue has been filed and the decision of which is pending ?'2. In pursuance of the direction, the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid question for the opinion of this court. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submits that in the quantum of appeal, the entire addition has been deleted, therefore, no base remains for sustaining the penalty.3. Learned counsel for the department prays for time to verify this fact 5 /6 opportunities were given and the reference was adjourned, but he has failed to controvert the facts submitted by the learned counsel fo...
Tag this Judgment!Autolite India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)548; [2003]264ITR117(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court : 'In the interest of the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in treating the increase in the production capacity from 6 lakhs head lamps per annum to 12 lakhs head lamps per annum as expansion and not extension as envisaged in Section 250 (sic) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequently holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 35D in respect of expenses as public issue.' 2. The relevant assessment years are 1987-88 and 1988-89. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had raised its capital by way of public issue and in the process had incurred Rs. 6,30,177. The amount of public issue was to be used for expansion of business. He claimed it as a revenue expenditure, but the claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer holding that the expenditure is a cap...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »