Rajasthan Court August 2008 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Charan Mathur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Raj)292; [2008]306ITR126(Raj)
ORDER1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue, seeking to challenge, the order of the Tribunal, dt. 22nd July, 2004, where by the order of the CIT(A), dt. 26th Aug., 1996, was affirmed. The learned CIT(A) had set aside the order of the AO, passed consequent upon a notice under Section 148, making addition of Rs. 1,28.642.50.2. The facts, lie in the very narrow compass, in as much as, the assessee, at the relevant time, was sitting MLA, and former Chief Minister of the State, who had submitted his return of income, received by him as salary, and disclosing other incomes also, however notice under Section 148 was issued for the reason, that the assessee received a sum of Rs. 1.28.643 from the State Government, as reimbursement of medical expenses in the relevant previous year, which amount was contended to be, liable to be taxed, under Section 17, which had not been offered, for assessment in the return.3. The learned CIT(A), while allowing the appeal, examined the matter, and in para 9, n...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Singh Vs. Col. Hari Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj18
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The defendant in a suit for partition (CO No. 41/1984) has preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC') seeking to challenge the order dated 07.07.2008 as passed by the learned District Judge, Bikaner disallowing his application dated 02.07.2007 whereby objections were raised against engrossment of the decree dated 19.04.1984 as passed in the suit on stamp papers. By the order impugned, the learned Trial Court, while overruling all the objections raised by the defendant-appellant has held that the decree in question was a final decree for partition and, thus, was to be engrossed on non-judicial stamp papers.2. In this appeal, the office made a report on limitation and other aspects relating to the form of the papers filed by the appellant and pointed out certain defects that were removed on 07.08.2008 and then, the matter was placed before the Registrar (Administration) on 11.08.2008. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 having app...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner Vs. Rajasthan Jan Jaati Kshetriya Vikas Sahkari ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: (2009)11VatReporter60
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Revenue.2. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Tax Board dated 27.2.2007 whereby the Tax Board has allowed refund of the tax deposited under protest by the respondent-assessee on the sale value of packing material as the Tax Board found that no tax was imposable in view of the notification dtd. 27.3.1995 quoted by the Tax Board in its order.3. This revision petition was filed in view of the condition imposed in the said notfn that the tax already paid to the State Govt. if any, shall not be refunded. However, the Tax Board has found that the said Tax was never collected from the customers and then paid by the assessee to the State.4. On the contrary, the finding is that the same was paid under protest by the respondent-assessee subject to his right under appeal filed by it before the Tax Board.5. Having heard the learned Counsel, this Court finds no question of law to be arising in the present cas...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Engineering Industries Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: [2009]316ITR448(Raj)
1. This appeal of the assessee was admitted on September 12, 2006, by framing the following substantial question of law, and was ordered, to be connected with IT Appeal No. 58 of 2003.Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal could on the basis of material before it sustain disallowance of Rs. 2,44,000 claimed to have been paid by erection and installation charges to M/s. Laxmi Stones Pvt. Ltd.?2. From the look at the order of the Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the Revenue, only on the basis of commission payment to M/s. Laxmi Stone Pvt. Ltd., which was held by the Assessing Officer, to be bogus, and was disallowed, which was upheld up to the Tribunal, on the basis, that order of the Tribunal, upholding disallowance, had not been set aside. This appeal No. 58 of 2003 is one of the bunch of appeals of the present assessee, wherein the disallowance of the commission is assailed, and the three appeals being Appeals Nos. 57 of 2003, 58 of 2003 and...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Judge, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj404
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful employer, seeking to assail the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.1.2008, dismissing the writ petition, whereby the appellant had challenged the award of the learned Labour Court, Udaipur dated 17.9.1992, whereby respondent No. 2, hereafter referred to as the workman, was ordered to be reinstated, by finding his termination to be violative of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and also held the workman entitled to 50% of the basic pay and allowance, to be paid within 3 months, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 12%, and also directing, that for the purpose of future service, promotion, and other benefits, the workman shall be treated to be in continuous service, and also awarded Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses.2. The necessary facts, as appearing from award, produced as Annexure 'N' are, that vide order dt. 6.7;i990 the reference was made by the appropriate Government to ...
Tag this Judgment!Kutubudeen and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj530
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. These are the two appeals filed by the above four accused appellants against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Anti Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner dated 5.12.2000 whereby he has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as under:Under Section 420 r/w 120 IPC : One year's R.I. & a fine of Rs. 1000/-Under Section 467 IPC : One year's R.I. & a fine of Rs. 1000/-Under Section 468 IPC : One year's R.l. & a fine of Rs. 1000/-Under Section 471 IPC : One year's R.I. & a fine of Rs. 1000/-Under Section 13(1)(d)r/w Section 13(2), P.C. Act. : One year's R.I. & a fine of Rs. 1000/-All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently and In default of payment of each amount of fine, accused appellants were further required to undergo three months' R.I. on each count.2. Facts leading to these appeals are that on 4.4.1992 when the trap in the house of accused appellant Moola Ram, RAS, was conducted by the A.C.D. Department in Case No. 45/92 then certain do...
Tag this Judgment!Gyana Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1006
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Challenge in this case has been made to the order of respondent dated 18.12.2004 whereby husband of the petitioner was deemed to have resigned from service and accordingly taken to have been removed from service with effect from 21.4.1999.2. Shri Deepak Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that her husband in fact had gone missing from the office since 21.4.1999 and the petitioner lodged a report of his disappearance with Police Station Newai, Tonk which was entered as rojnamcha at S. No. 74. Her husband was never heard of thereafter. Learned Counsel submitted that a presumption in view of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act should arise about his death. Learned Counsel therefore prayed that the order of his removal which has been passed simply on the basis of notice under Section 86(4) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, should be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to pay to the petitioner family pension as also the other terminal...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Hardware Store Vs. Shri Madhusudan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj90
Vineet Kothari, J.1. By concurrent judgments the two courts below have decreed the suit for eviction of the shop In question situated at Chopasani Road, Jodhpur in favour of plaintiff-respondents and the defendanttenant has filed the present second appeal being aggrieved of the said judgments and decrees.2. The first appellate court dismissed the defendant's appeal by impugned judgment dated 17/1/2008 affirming the judgment and decree of learned trial court in suit No. 35/2000 which was rendered on 29/4/2004. The original suit was filed in the year 1988 and was registered as suit No. 359/88. The decree has been given by both the courts below on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiff-landlord.3. The defendant-appellant before this Court in the present second appeal has assailed these judgments mainly on the ground that relationship of plaintiff as landlord and defendant as tenant was not established by the plaintiff as the shop in question was given on rent by one M/...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Ram Vs. Maharana Pratap Agriculture Technology University and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj494
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This writ petition is the second innings of the petitioner for seeking relief against the respondents for allowing retiral benefits on the basis of selection scales already granted to him by the respondent University and for quashing Annex. 12 dated 18.11.2005 and Annex. 13 dated 9/13.12.2005.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed initially as Helper to Mechanic with effect from 3.5.1966 in the grade of Rs. 45-70. He was confirmed on the post of Helper to Mechanic with effect from 3.5.1967 vide order dated 6.6.1968.3. Initially, the petitioner was appointed in the Udaipur University and, later on, when separate Agriculture University known as Rajasthan Agriculture University, Udaipur was established the petitioner became employee of the said University which, however, was further re-named as Mohan Lal Sukhadia University and, ultimately upon formation of Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur the petitioner bec...
Tag this Judgment!Phool Chand Saraogi Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ493
ORDERG.S. Sarraf, J.1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 14-8-2007 (wrongly mentioned as 14-8-2006) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur in criminal case No. 339/2006 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been dismissed.2. In the criminal complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 it is alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque bearing number 764959 dated 29-11-2004 for Rs. 74.82,684/- in favour of the respondent No. 2, drawn on The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Madrampura Branch which came to be dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the petitioner. The cheque in question is alleged to have been issued by the petitioner for repayment of the loan taken by him from the respondent No. 2. The complaint is pending trial in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »