Rajasthan Court July 2003 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.
D.C. Charaya Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Raj)356; [2005]276ITR60(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was admitted in 17th July, 2001, to consider the following substantial question of law :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the conveyance and additional conveyance allowance paid to the appellant who is an employee of LIC is not exempt under Section 10(14)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. The appellant is officer in Life Insurance Corpn. of India and posted at Sriganganagar. During the course of assessment, it was noticed that assessee has claimed exemption of conveyance and additional conveyance allowance under Section 10(14)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. The relevant provision of Section 10(14)(ii) reads as under :'Section 10(14)(ii)--Any such allowance granted to the assessee either to meet his personal expenses at the place where the duties of his office or employment of profit are ordinarily performed by him or at the place where he ordinarily resides, or to compensat...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Compaigne General-de-geophysique Throug ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Raj)363; [2004]267ITR634(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, following questions were referred for the opinion of this Court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in : 1. upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) who held that the amount of corporate tax paid by the OIL on behalf of the company falls under Section 44B(2) and therefore, only 10 per cent of that amount may be treated as income of the assessee. 2. observing that the amount of corporate taxes paid by the OIL on behalf of the non-resident company does not amount to perquisite within the meaning of Section 28(iv) ?' 2. The relevant assessment years are 1985-86 to 1988-89. The assessee M/s Compagnie General-de-Geophysique, a non-resident company, entered into contract with the Oil India Ltd., for exploration, production and transportation of crude oil and natural gas. Amongst the terms of contract, the corporate tax of the NRE company was to be borne by the Oil India ...
Mehmood Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj97; 2003(4)WLC187
Goyal, J.1. This petition by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 3.5.2003 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kishangarh Bas, district Alwar affirmed the order dated 21.4.2003 by which learned Judicial Magistrate, Tijara dismissed the application for custody of tractor-trolley.2. The relevant facts in brief are that one F.I.R. was registered at police station Tapukara with the averments that at about 7 p.m. on 4.1.2003 one Shri Ilias was found carrying stones by this tractor-trolley from the forest area and on preventing him by the forester, he along with others took away the tractor-trolley by using force.3. F.I.R. under Sections 33, 41, 42 of the Rajasthan Forest Act and under Sections 353, 379 I.P.C. was registered. Charge-sheet came to be filed after investigation.4. The petitioner, being owner of this tractor-trolley No. RJ 02-1-R2593, moved an application for custody of the tractor- trolley. The same was dismissed vide order d...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Birla Jute and Industries Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2003
Reported in: 2004(165)ELT148(Raj)
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. On a reference petition under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, following question is proposed, that should be referred for the opinion of this Court:'Whether the Tribunal have the power to allow the benefit of the Modvat credit on the goods under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944, which are otherwise not specifically mentioned in the Rules itself?'3. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that similar question has been considered by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd., 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C) and recently in Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Escorts Mahle Ltd., 2003 (154) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) - (2003) 4 SCC 758.4. Learned Counsel further submitted that similar question has been considered by this Court in Union of India v. Rishabhdev Textiles, D.B. Civil Reference Petition No. 32/2001, decided on 27th November, 2001 [2002 (141) E.L.T.352(Raj.)...
Hem Raj JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj907; 2003(4)WLC32
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 4.12.2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order of suspension dated 26.11.2002 (Annex. 3) passed by the State Government (respondent No. 1) by which the petitioner was put under suspension in exercise of power under Section 63(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1959') on the ground that under Section 63 of the Act of 1959, a decision has been taken for judicial enquiry against the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-The petitioner was elected as Member, Municipal Board, Sangaria from Ward No. 19 in the elections held in Aug. 2000 and thereafter, he was elected as Chairperson, Municipal Board, Sangaria.The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 K.C. Bishnoi...
Shantilal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1490
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. Both the abovementioned appeals are being decided by this common judgment as in both of them, common questions of law and facts are involved and they have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8.12.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 37/98, by which he convicted all four accused appellants for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act') and sentenced each of them to undergo 10 years RI and to pay fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two years RI.2. The facts giving rise to these two appeals, in short, are as follows:-PW12 Tulsiram, who was at the relevant time SHO Police Station Parsoli prepared a Parchakayami (Ex.P/27) on 18.2.1998 stating inter-alia that on 18.2.1998 at about 1.15 PM he received a secret information from mukhbir to the effect that Shanti Lal (accused appell...
Hanuman Mal Vs. Jatan Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2003
Reported in: AIR2005Raj71; RLW2005(2)Raj1443; 2004WLC(Raj)UC317
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit in the Court of learned District Judge, Bikaner on 22-4-1968 against the respondent-defendant alleging that defendant has taken a loan of Rs. 37,000/-from the plaintiff and executed a mortgage-deed in his favour in respect of a house situated in Mohalla Rangadi and Bothra in the city of Bikaner on 9-4-1949. As per the terms of mortgage-deed, which was a simple mortgage, the amount was payable with interest & 9 Annas (56 p.) per hundred per month. The mortgage-deed dated 9-4-1949 (Ex.-2) recites that the mortgage amount was payable on demand.2. The appellant also averred in the plaint that the defendant paid Rs. 1,000/- through cheque dt. 12-10-1960 in respect of which a letter was also written by him in his favour. According to the plaint averments, the payment of Rs. 1,000/- as well as the written document dated 11-12-1960 (Poha Badi 8 Samwat 2017) acknowledging sending of cheque of Rs. 1,000/- against mortgage debt resulted ...
Anand JaIn (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj2054; 2003(4)WLC70
Garg, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents on 9.8.2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dtd. 11.6.2002 (Annex.P/39) passed by the respondent No. 1 by which the petitioner was treated to have abandoned the service with effect from 28.7.83 and therefore his name was deleted from the role of Medical Officer 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 initially appointed on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon vide order dtd. 3.9.80 (Annex. 1) on urgent and temporary basis.ii) That the petitioner was thereafter selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon against the substantive vacancy of the Civil Assistant Surgeon. A selection list dtd. 20.12.80 (Annex.P/2) was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, in which the nam...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Premlata Jalani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)601; [2003]264ITR744(Raj)
R. Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dated March 27, 2002.3. The appeal relates to intimation/assessment under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 2000-2001 in the case of the respondent-assessee.4. The return of income was filed by the assessee on October 30, 2000, for the assessment year 2000-2001. An intimation under Section 143(1) was sent by the Assessing Officer on November 9, 2000, making variation in the calculation computing the interest as made by the assessee under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act.5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid additions made to the admitted liability to pay interest by the assessee while exercising jurisdiction under Section 143(1), the assessee preferred a rectification application before the Assessing Officer which was dismissed by him on January 16, 2001. He held that ...
Harchanda Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj98; 2003(3)WLC798
Goyal, J.1. The facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, are that the accused petitioner alongwith others is facing trial for offences under Sections 302, 341, 447, read with Section 34 IPC in Sessions Case No. 79/2001. The statement of P.W. 15 Richpal Singh, the then S.H.O., who investigated this case was being recorded on 13.5.03. During the examination-in-Chief, an objection was raised on behalf of the accused persons that this witness was deposing after perusing the case file of the Court which is not permissible. This objection was disallowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jaipur District, Jaipur, by holding that the witness being the Investigation Officer, permission is granted to refresh his memory. This order has been challenged vide this petition by the accused petitioner with a prayer to recall the entire statement of this witness.2. Learned counsel for the accused referred the Provisions of Sections 159 and 160 of the Indian Eviden...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »