Rajasthan Court November 2005 Judgments
Rajasthan Wine Agency Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Raj)346
1. Though the appeal was admitted on five substantial questions of law but Mr. Kasliwal, counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee submits that the effective issue is in question No. 3, which reads as under:Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition at Rs. 1.50 lakhs on the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A), irrespective of the fact that the Tribunal has accepted, that order passed by the CIT(A) is reasoned one 2. The appellant is a partnership firm and derived income from sale of liquor. The appellant filed its IT return for the asst. yr. 1985-86 declaring income of Rs. 50,000. A notice under Section 143 of the IT Act was issued to the appellant and the AO vide order dt. 29th March, 1990, while declining to accept the book result, assessed the net profit of the appellant-assessee at the rate of 3 per cent. The AO estimated the sales from Rs. 3,62,87,231 to Rs. 4,00,00,000, made an addition of Rs. 12,00,000 and assessed the income of the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Prakash Toshniwal and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Raj)207; [2006]284ITR306(Raj)
1. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family (HUF) and the relevant assessment year is 1991-92. The assessee derived income from contract business. For the asst. yr. 1991-92, the assessee declared its total income as Rs. 1,19,338. In the accounting year, relevant to the assessment year, the Karta of the HUF has sublet its contract to individual though the person is same but in dual capacity. The AO has added the income which has been shown as income from subletting a contract in his individual capacity. In appeal, that addition has been deleted by the CIT(A) holding that even after subletting of the contract by the HUF to individual, the net result of income is not affected as whatever the individual has advanced the money to HUF to carry out the contract work that was used and if the interest of that amount as loan which has been advanced to assessee is taken into account that is more than the profit shown in the hands of individual by Karta of HUF. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 69,58...
Tag this Judgment!Ayush Kumar Bilala and ors. Vs. Himmat Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC522; 2007ACJ462
N.K. Jain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The claimants-appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment/ award dated 17.6.1997 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in M.A.C.T. Case No. 71 of 1996, whereby Claims Tribunal passed an award for a sum of Rs. 3,74,940 in favour of the appellants.2. The only contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that while passing the award of compensation, it was the duty of the Tribunal to award interest thereupon but the Tribunal failed to award the interest on the amount of compensation and no reason whatsoever has been assigned for the same. Therefore, the respondents be directed to pay interest on the amount of compensation also.3. The present application for compensation was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein special provisions are described about the payment of compensation as indicated in the Second Schedule. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifica...
Tag this Judgment!Jeet Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj498
J.R. Goyal, J.1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 25.5.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bayana (Bharatpur) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners, was dismissed.2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners filed an application under Section 451, 457 Cr.P.C. for the custody of tractor bearing registration No.RJ-05-2R-1213, which was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, Vair (Bharatpur) and the application filed by the respondent No.2 - Ram Roop, for the custody of said tractor, was allowed. Against the order dated 29.4.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Vair, revision petition was preferred by the petitioners, which was dismissed by the revisional Court vide impugned judgment.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and other material made available during the arguments.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the tractor in ...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Chand Vs. Bhanwar Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj950; 2006(2)WLC71
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. On October 23, 1975 the plaintiff respondent (for short, 'landlord') filed the suit for ejectment on the ground of default of payment of rent and nuisance against the defendant appellant (for short 'tenant') from the tenanted premises, which was occupied by the tenant on rent at the rate of Rs. 41/- per month.2. On January 5, 1976 the tenant, prior to filing of the written statement, moved an application under Section 13(3) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, 'Rent Act') seeking determination of provisional rent with the following prayer:-It is therefore, prayed that learned court be pleased to determine the amount to be deposited by this defendant now and allow him time to deposit according to law.Learned Munsif Magistrate vide order dated March 2, 1976 determined the provisional rent with consent of parties. The order reads as under:-2.3.76odqyk; Qjhdsu gkftj A mUgsa vthZ under Section 13(3) Rent Act ij lquk tkdj vthZ mud...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Raj)284
1. In this appeal, following questions are raised :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not rectifying its earlier order, and sustaining addition to the tune of Rs. 50,000 instead, of Rs. 48,500 despite the fact that 2/3rd investment in pawning business at Rs. 72,750 was accepted by the Tribunal ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to rectify its earlier order and rejecting the claim in regard to deductions under Chapter VI-A on the ground that it was not pressed and no details were filed and there is no mistake apparent on the face of record, when sufficient material was available on the record ?2. A search under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961, took place on 31st Aug., 1995 at the assessee's premises. Cash book and other records relating to business of appellant were found and seized. Inter alia, after perusal of the record, the income was assessed in the block ye...
Tag this Judgment!A.C.T.O. Vs. White Marble House
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-2005
Reported in: [2006]148STC14(Raj)
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated September 11, 2003 passed by the Tax Board whereby, the Tax Board rejected the Revenue's appeals as well as the assessee's cross-objections. The Revenue in revision came before this court on the ground that the Tax Board has erred in setting aside the penalty under Section 65 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, which was imposed by the assessing authority on the ground that C forms received from the purchasing dealer of Kerala were not found to be genuine and accordingly, the selling dealer, the present assessee, was not entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of four per cent against such C forms. The learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the imposition of additional tax and interest. However, the penalty imposed on the selling dealer was set aside.2. Aggrieved against the same, the Revenue preferred a second appeal before the Tax Board for restoration of penalty under Section 65 of the Act b...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sukh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1065; 2006(2)WLC229
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants Ram Sukh, Ramdev and Tara Chand were charged and tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 84/2001. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Ajmer vide judgment dated August 11, 2004 convicted and sentenced them as under:Under Section 304 Part I with the aid of 34 IPC:Each to suffer Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further suffer ten days simple imprisonment.Under Section 323/34 IPC:Each to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer seven days imprisonment.Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as under:On December 23, 1998 at 11.30 PM the informant Sukhpal (PW. 20) submitted a written report (Ex. P-27) at police station Mangaliyabas, stating therein that because of chronic litigation with Dr. Subhash the informant and his family members had left their nat...
Tag this Judgment!Mukat Bihari Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ439; RLW2006(2)Raj1369; 2006(1)WLC164
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. The accused appellant Mukut Bihari has filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 4th July, 2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, (Fast Track), Kotain Sessions Case No. 16/02 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 304B, IPC to 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months S.I.2. P.W. 1 Ghasi Lal lodged a typed report Ex. P1 on 13-10-2001 at Police Station Budhadit, District Kota wherein it was alleged that his daughter Shakuntala Bai aged about 24 years was married on 28th April, 1996 with accused Mukat Bihari s/o Kishan Gopal by caste Gurjar r/o Morana P.S. Budhadit, District Kota. The 'Gauna' ceremony took place after 3 years of the marriage and the number of items were given in dowry as per details given in the said report. It was further alleged that the accused Mukat Bihari and in-laws of Shakuntala Bai demande...
Tag this Judgment!Saroj Raheja Vs. Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj102
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The petitioner has submitted this writ petition being aggrieved of the order dated 1-9-2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri Ganganagar in Civil Suit No. 26/2001 whereby the learned trial Court has rejected an application filed by the petitioner for deciding the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue.2. From the documents produced on record and the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the plaintiff-respondents have filed a suit on 11-12-2000 seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 22-10-1977 alleged to have been executed by one Nemi Bai in favour of Balwant Singh. The plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 and 3 are the sons of Balwant Singh. According to the plaint averments, Smt. Nemi Bai had expired on 2-9-1987 and her only heir was her daughter Yasoda Devi, who had also expired on 6-3-1999 and the defendant No. 1, the present petitioner is her only heir. The dispute relates to 10 bighas of agric...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »