Rajasthan Court July 2004 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.
Kan Singh Gehlot Vs. Ashok Gehlot and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2516; 2004(4)WLC187
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The petitioner, by this election petition under Section 81 read with Sections 100 and 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1951'), has challenged the election of respondent No. 1 who was declared elected by the Returning Officer as a Member of the Legislative Assembly from Sardarpura Constituency of City of Jodhpur, Rajasthan, on 4.12.2003.2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the petitioner are that, the petitioner on an assurance given by the President of Indian National Lok Dal submitted his nomination paper before the Returning Officer, certified copy of which is placed on record as Annexure-1. The nomination of the petitioner was rejected by the Returning Officer vide order dated 15.11.2003 on the two grounds; firstly, out of ten proposers, names of six proposers are not available in the part number of the voter list and at the roll numbers which were disclosed by the proposers and the petitioner in petitioner'...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kailash Chand Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Raj)201
Rajesh Balia, J.1. In this appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed at the time of admission :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in giving relief of undisclosed jewellery of 190.85 gms. even though the AO and the CIT(A) had given relief as per the CBDT Instruction No. 1916, dt. 11th May, 1994, though the WT returns were not filed by the family members for the block assessment period ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 42,27,900 even though the assessee could not explain the loose papers relating to this amount which were found during the search regarding sale of land alleged to have been made by Smt. Chandra Kanta Pandit ?'2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on these questions.3. The appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal, Jaipur, dt. 28th Feb., 2001.4. The subject-matter of the appeal ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Khubi Ram Om Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Raj)126; [2005]275ITR131(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. These two appeals were admitted in terms of following questions :'1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had erred in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271B?2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law when it was proved that the assessee was provided photocopies of the documents by the Department which was sufficient for compliance of the provisions of Section 44AB?'3. Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant and dispose of these appeals by this common order.4. Considering the business turnover of the assessee-respondent, the assessee-respondent was under obligation to comply with the provisions of Section 44AB of the Act and get all its accounts audited and was required to submit audit report in the prescribed form, along with the returns. That has not been done, therefore, the penalty was initiate...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maliram Puranmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Raj)352; [2005]274ITR47(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These three reference applications under Section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, are filed for three asst. yrs. 1973-74, 1972-73, 1975-76, respectively seeking a direction to the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer certain question in each application said to be a question of law arising out of Tribunal's appellate order passed in ITA Nos. 1828, 1829 and 1831/Jp/1995 in the case of the same respondent-assessee by a common order. The reference applications Nos. 5/1996, 4/1996 and 7/1996 under Section 256(1) were all rejected by a common order dt. 24th Feb., 1997, along with RA No. 6/Jp/1996.2. The questions raised in all the three reference applications are identical, and therefore, we propose to decide the three applications by a common order.3. The case has a chequered history of multiple rounds of litigations and since the question raised in these applications is already subject-matter of a reference made to this Court under Section 256(1) by th...
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Raj)344; [2005]273ITR98(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These four appeals arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal on 12th Oct., 2001, in each case on an application moved by the appellant-assessee under Section 254(2) of the IT Act for rectifying its order dt. 22nd Feb., 2000 passed in appeals relating to asst. yrs. 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 (four years).2. The controversy for the present purpose pertains to the assessment of the income derived by the appellant-assessee by way of interest on debentures and securities for the aforesaid assessment years. The controversy has earlier' been raised relating to the asst. yrs. (sic-1989-90), 1991-92 and 1992-93 which has been subject-matter of the decision of the Tribunal passed in ITA Nos. 5/Jp/1992 and 1060 and 1061/Jp/1994 decided by a common order dt. 29th Oct., 1998.3. The-ground No. 1 dealt by the Tribunal in its order dt. 29th Oct., 1998 was against the sustenance of addition on account of interest on securities/ debentures on accrual basis. There was no di...
Pushpa Devi (Smt.) Vs. Urban Improvement Trust and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2666; 2004(4)WLC177
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. All the aforesaid three revision petitions are being decided by this common judgment as in all of them common questions of law and facts are involved.S.B. Civil Revision No. 805/992. This revision has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 1, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No. 84/84 by which he allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the respondent No. 2 was made party to that suit as defendant No. 2.3. Necessary facts giving rise to this revision are as follows:-The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit being No. 84/84 for injunction against the respondent No. 1 Urban Improvement Trust (for short 'the Trust') alleging interalia that she was the owner of the dispute property and the defendant-respondent No. 1 had no right to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-petitioner. After nearabout 15 years of filing of that suit, an a...
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN519(Raj)
ORDER RECALLING EARLIER ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajasthan Construction Company
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Raj)129; [2005]274ITR44(Raj)
1. The appeal has been admitted in terms of the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in allowing registration to assessee-firm whereas the assessee-firm itself had filed return in the status of URF, and this case was of fresh registration of the firm?'2. The assessee-firm filed return of income for the asst. yr. 1990-91 in the status of URF. During the course of assessment proceedings under Section 143(3), the assessee filed application for registration with partnership deed on 17th Dec., 1992 and requested for condonation of delay stating reasons that the deed could not be filed on 31st March, 1990 as it remained with the Authorised Representative.3. The AO did not accept the reasons and the application of the assessee for registration has been rejected, The CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal.4. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal considering the facts and circumstances that there is a reasonable ground for...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mohta Construction Company
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Raj)131; [2005]273ITR276(Raj)
1. The Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on its interpretation of proviso to Section 32(1)(ii), the Tribunal was legally justified in holding each individual shuttering as machinery or plant for the purpose of allowing 100 per cent depreciation to the extent of Rs. 2,21,430 to the assessee whereas only a depreciation of 33-1/3 per cent was held allowable by the AO on such integrated unit of plant and machinery in the case?'2. The business of the assessee is executing construction work for M.E.S., i.e., construction of buildings. The assessee acquired shuttering work worth Rs. 2,21,430 and claimed depreciation in terms of the provisions of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and he claimed 100 per cent depreciation on shuttering as the cost of each unit of shuttering is less than Rs. 5,000.3. There is no authority contrary to the view taken by the Tribunal. However, counsel for the respond...
AamIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj249; 2004(4)WLC175
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Incident alleged to have taken place on 1.10.2001 at 6.30 AM. The FIR was lodged on the same date at 9.45 AM against 43 persons for offence under Sections 307, 302, 326 IPC. The Police, after investigation, filed chargesheet against 37 accused persons. Subsequently during trial an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the Public Prosecutor for impleading four present accused respondents also as accused in the present case. The application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 5.12.2003. Hence the present revision petition filed by the complainant challenging the above order dated 5.12.2003 passed by the trial court.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the First Information Report as also the statements of three injured witnesses and one eye-witness before the police as also the trial court during trial, submitted that all the four accused respondents have been named not only in the FIR, but also the statements of the witn...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »