Rajasthan Court February 2008 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.
A.R. Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Raj)306
ORDER1. This is an appeal, by the assessee against the order of the learned Tribunal, upholding the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(e) of the IT Act. The appeal was admitted on 16th Sept., 2003, by framing following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is justified ?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessee has not discharged his burden to disclose the presumption arising against him under Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 ?2. The facts of the case are, that the appellant filed return for the relevant assessment year. However, notices were issued to him under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) with detailed questionnaire. Thereafter, the evidence was recorded, enquiry was held, and assessment was made. That assessment was challenged in appeal, and on further appeal, there were ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kishan Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Raj)181
ORDER1. This is an appeal by the Revenue, seeking to challenge the order of the learned Tribunal dt. 30th March, 2001, affirming the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 28th Oct., 1999, whereby the addition of Rs. 10,84,835, made by the AO, in the assessment order dt. 29th Jan., 1999, was deleted.2. For the present purposes, it would suffice to say that search .operation was undertaken on the residential premises of the assessee on 4th March, 1997. Then in response to notice issued under Section 158BC, the assessee filed return of income for the block period, declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 17,96,620. The present controversy, however, relates only to the additions made by the AO, on account of undisclosed investment in the agricultural lands and plots. The AO held the assessee to have purchased the agricultural lands and plots during the block period. Copies of agreements/registered deeds were seized, and from scrutiny thereof, it was observed, that the investment accounted for regardi...
Safi Khan Vs. Ibrahim Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj87; RLW2008(2)Raj1414
Govind Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated 12.7.2007 granting temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff respondents Ibrahim Khan and Anwar Khan.2. Brief facts necessary for present purpose are that appellant defendant Safi Khan, respondent defendant Ratan Khan, Jakir, Adil and respondent plaintiffs Ibrahim Khan and Anwar Khan are descendants of Late Shri Rehmat Khan and his wife Smt. Amna. The pedigree of the family is:Late Rehmat Khan & Late Smt. Amna_____________________________________||___________________|______________________| | | |Umrao Ibrahim Ratan Safi KhanKhan Khan Khan (Appellant| (Plaintiff) defendant)_____________|__________| | |Anwar Jakir Adil(Plaintiff)3. Plaintiffs Ibrahim Khan and Anwar Khan preferred a suit for partition and injunction and so also preferred an application seeking temporary injunction. As per the averments contained in the application, Late Shri Rehmat Khan and Smt. Amna were ha...
Suwalka Transport Co. Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN122
Manak Mohta, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties in respect of application filed under Section 11 read with Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1996') for appointment of Arbitrator.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the applicant is partnership firm and is a fleet Owner and Transport Contractor engaged in the work of transportation under the name and style of 'Suwalka Transport Company'. It is further submitted that during June-July, 1994 tenders were invited by M/s. Hindustan Zinc Limited for the transportation of Zinc and lead concentrates from Zawar Mines, Udaipur to Chanderia Lead-Zinc Smelter, Chittorgarh and in accordance with that, the applicant filed in tender form on 07.10.1994, which was ultimately accepted on 15.11.1994 as the bid of applicant being the lowest, the applicant was awarded work vide work-order No. ZM/ML/PROC/94/434 dt. 04.12.1994 for the 'transportation of Zinc and Lead concentrates...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kishan Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: [2009]315ITR204(Raj)
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue, seeking to challenge the order of the learned Tribunal dated March 30, 2001, affirming the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated October 28, 1999, whereby the addition of Rs. 10,84,835, made by the Assessing Officer, in the assessment order dated January 29, 1999, was deleted.2. For the present purposes, it would suffice to say that search operation was undertaken on the residential premises of the assessee on March 4, 1997. Then in response to the notice issued under Section 158BC, the assessee filed return of income for the block period, declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 17,96,620. The present controversy, however, relates only to the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed investment in the agricultural lands and plots. The Assessing Officer held the assessee to have purchased the agricultural lands and plots during the block period. Copies of agreements/registered deeds were seized and from s...
Kripal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1637
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment dated November 22, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Jhalawar whereby accused Kripal Singh was convicted and sentenced under Sections 302, 394 and 324 IPC and co-accused Ramlal, Arjun Singh and Sultan Singh were acquitted of all the charges. Kripal Singh is the appellant in appeal No. 16/2003. Whereas Appeal No. 513/2003 has been filed by the State of Rajasthan.2. It is the prosecution case that on July 28, 2001 at 9.15 PM informant Sunil Goyal (P.W. 13) submitted a written report (Ex. P 1) at Police Station Dug with the averments that on the said day around 6.30 PM he along with his elder brother Yashwant and Paras Mai had gone on motor cycle RJ-20 8M-9309 to their agricultural farm situated at village Doodhlai and while they were returning back Kripal Singh, Ramlal, Arjun Singh and Sultan Singh met them near the house of Dhoole Singh. They were armed with axe, lathi, Dharia, sword and...
Satya NaraIn Gupta Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2115
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order of cognizance dated 5.5.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, in Criminal Case No. 222/2001, under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional Court, by filing a revision petition, but the same was also dismissed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar, vide his order dated 23.2.2005 confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, this petition has been filed before this Court.2. This petition had came up for consideration of the High Court on 7.6.2005. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the alleged offence is of 1.11.1996 and the cognizance had been taken after expiry of the period of limitation i.e. three years, as provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Some other grounds were also ...
Manohar Lal and ors. Vs. Central Narcotics Bureau
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN107
Govind Mathur, J.1. The judgment dt. 14.01.2003 of learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Chittorgarh convicting and sentencing appellants Ramesh Chandra and Anup Kumar for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1985') and appellant Manohar Lal for the offence under Section 8/29 of the Act of 1985 is challenged in these appeals. The sentence awarded to the appellants is of ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. One lac and in default of that to undergo further three months simple imprisonment. The trial Court also ordered to confiscate the Maruti-800 Car (DL-9-C-6762) in which the opium was said to be transported and also the sum of Rs. 15,000/- recovered from accused Manohar Lal. Since accused Manohar Lal died, the appeal on his behalf is prosecuted by his legal representatives.2. The facts, as stated in the charge sheet, are that on 20.03.2001 ...
Kashi Purohit Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1703
ORDERMohammad Rafiq, J.1. Kashi Purohit, a resident of Jaipur, claiming himself to be a public spirited person, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, praying for a mandamus to be issued to the Governor of the State of Rajasthan, to refer the question of disqualification of Ministers of the State of Rajasthan and the Members of the Legislative Assembly referred to in paras 10 to 16 of the petition for having committed breach of the oath of their office. Earlier than approaching this Court, the petitioner had filed a petition before the Governor of the State of Rajasthan under Article 192 read with Articles 173(a) , 188 and 190 and 191 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, on the premises that the certain Ministers of his government, namely, Shri Kalu Lal Gurjar, M.L.A. & Minister of Development and Panchayati Raj; Shri Kanak Mal Katara, M.L.A. & Minister of Women and Child Development and Janjati Vikas; Dr.Kirori Lal Meena, M.L.A. & Minister for Food and Sup...
Shankar Lal and anr. Vs. Additional District Judge and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1386
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the material placed on record.2. The petitioners-defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are defending a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property and mesne profits as filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 2.3. It appears that the suit was filed in the year 1998; and the petitioners filed their written statement on 10.2.2003. Thereafter, on 8.8.2003, the plaintiff filed certain documents before the trial Court; and filing of such documents was objected to by the petitioners-defendants Nos. 1 and 2. On an application moved by the petitioners with reference to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 read with Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in this regard, the learned trial Court by its order dated 14.12.2004 (Annex. 1) refused to take on record the said documents filed by the plaintiff without the permission of the Court. It further appears that the order so passed by the trial Court was challenged ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »