Rajasthan Court August 2008 Judgments
Laxman Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj990
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment dated 10.7.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi whereby he was convicted for offence under Section 5 of the. Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and sentenced to undergo for rigorous imprisonment of five years with a fine of Rs. 500/- with the stipulation that in the event of default for making payment of fine, he shall have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. A first information report was lodged by one Bherulal, Constable with Police Station Bundi. In the report, it was alleged that on 11.7.1984 while the said Constable was on duty on the bus stand of Bundi at 8.30, pm the appellant was found with jute bag (Katta) near the bus which was going to Nainwa. On enquiry, he told his name to be Bheru Singh and when checked, the bag was found containing capsules of gelatin. Another Sipoy Shambu Kishore, also in the meantime approached there and both of the...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Hansraj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2286
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated March 12, 2004 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Baran, (Rajasthan) (hereinafter to be referred as the learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 7/2003, by which he acquitted the accused respondent No. 1 Hansraj, No. 2 Amarlal and No. 3 Om Prakash for the offences under Section 307, 324, 324/34 and 326/34 IPC and accused respondent No. 4 Nandlal for the offence under Section 3/27 of Indian Arms Act.2. In brief, the facts of the case are as under:On 7.2.2002, complainant Hemraj (PW.1) submitted a written report in Police Station Sadar, Baran with this effect that on 7.2.2002 at about 6-6.30 P.M. when he and one Promod Kumar (PW. 3) were going on motor cycle in the field to start Motor, suddenly when they reached near the Om Prakash Gupta from the road and went through the side of Atru, suddenly from the body of Chottumal Meena the accused-resp...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Dilip Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2396
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Baran (hereinafter to be referred as 'the learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 54/2004, by which he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC but convicted the accused-respondent No. 1 Dilip Singh for the offence under Section 324 IPC and released him on probation by giving benefit of Probation of Offender Act and also imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- to be deposited in the learned trial Court under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act.2. In brief, the facts of the case are as under:On 6.1.2004, complainant Sitaram (PW. 2) given a Parcha Bayan (Ex. P/2) before the Police in M.B.S. Hospital, Kota in which he has stated that when he was standing outside the house, at that time accused-respondents came. Accused-respondent Dilip having Chura in his hand and Mahendra is ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Companies Act, 1956; in Re: Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1 ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-2008
Reported in: [2008]88SCL321(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The applicant Balaji Industrial Products Limited (Applicant Transferor Company) and Balaji Industrial Engineering Limited (Applicant Transferee Company) filed this application under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act of 1956) praying as under:(i) necessary directions may be given as to the issue and publication of notices and the convening, holding and conducting of the separate meetings of secured and unsecured creditors of the applicant Transferor Company, and(ii) the meeting of the members of the Applicant Transferor Company may kindly be dispensed with.(iii) the meeting of the members of the Applicant Transferee Company may kindly be dispensed with.(iv) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed.2. Balaji Enterprises Pvt. Limited was incorporated on November 21, 1983 with the Registrar of Companies Jaipur. The company changed its n...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mehta Gwar Gum and Company
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Raj)58
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue, against the judgment of the Tribunal, confirming the order of the CIT(A), whereby he had allowed deductions to the assessee, under Section 80IA of the IT Act, on the amount of Rs. 4,76,154, finding it to be business income.2. The appeal was admitted on 22nd Aug., 2006, by framing following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, additions made in the income of the assessee as income from the undisclosed sources can be considered as income from the business, which is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA of the IT Act, 1961.3. The necessary facts are that a survey was conducted on the business premises of the assfssee, on 31st Dec, 1999, and according to the Department, excess stock, in the tune of Rs. 4,51,010 was found. The assessee did not object to this excess stock. Thereafter, the assessee filed return for the relevant previous year, on 31st Oct., 2000, which was selected for scru...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj367
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J. 1. These are the three appeals filed by five accused appellants arising out of the judgment of learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh dated 28.1.2003, whereby he convicted all the five accused appellants for the offence under Section ection 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, hereinafter referred-to as 'the Act' and sentenced each of them to undergo ten years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac and in default, to further undergo three months' S.I. The truck No. RJ 19 G 3625 was also ordered to be confiscated. However, the proceedings against Nirbhay Singh were kept pending under Section ec. 173 (8) CrPC.2. Facts leading to this appeal are that on 25.4.2001, Anil Joshi, SHO, PS, Bhadesar received a secret information that the accused Babulal Jat & Jeevan Ram Bishnoi are purchasing poppy straw from the nearby village Muraliya and accused appellants Anar Khan, Ayub Khan and Shakeel Khan are loading the said poppy straw in the tr...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Suman Distributor Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-2008
Reported in: [2009]149CompCas358(Raj); [2009]96SCL363(Raj)
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. Both the criminal appeals arise out of a common judgment as also common facts and questions of law, hence the same are being decided by this common judgment.2. Both the criminal appeals have been filed by the appellant-Union of India, through Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs, against the judgment of acquittal dated August 14, 2002, passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred in short 'learned trial court') in Criminal Case No. 549 of 2000, whereby it acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Section 159/162 of the Companies Act, 1956.3. Brief facts of the case are that the Assistant Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, filed a complaint in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Rajasthan, Jaipur, under Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956, to the effect that according to Section 166 and its sub-sections the company ...
Tag this Judgment!Saraf Seasoning Udyog Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Raj)461; [2009]317ITR202(Raj)
ORDERN.P. Gupta, J.1. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee, seeking to challenge, the judgment of the Tribunal dt. 10th Feb., 2006, deciding two appeals, relating to asst. yrs. 2003-04 and 2004-05.2. Appeals were admitted on 11th Sept., 2006, by framing the following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that Clause (iiid) was inserted in Section 28 of the IT Act. 1961 retrospectively w.e.f. 1st April, 1998 vide Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income derived by the assessee from the sale of DEPB licenses was not the profit and gains from the industrial undertaking which was held to be eligible for claiming deduction under Section 80IB of the Act, 1961 otherwise?3. The controversy, lies in a very narrow compass, inasmuch as, the AO noticed, during the assessment proceedings, in respect of the assessee, that the assessee has shown income from sale of import e...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. Devendra Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Raj)629
ORDER1. These five appeals arise out of the common Judgment of the learned Tribunal dt. 8th Sept., 2005. The appeals relate to different assessment years, starting from 1994-95 to 1998-99. The appeals were admitted on different dates, by framing the common questions of law being:(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in adjudicating the validity of reasons accorded by the AO at the time of assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 with reference to the ultimate finding reached by the AO notwithstanding holding that the information received from DDI constitutes valid material on the basis of which required satisfaction can be reached by the AO for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was Justified in quashing the reassessment and the consequential additions made therein holding that the passing of order under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 assessing the other ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bigabass Maheshwari Sewa Samiti
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Raj)369
ORDER1. This appeal by the Revenue, seeks to challenge the order of the Tribunal, dt. 24th June, 2005, whereby the appeal of the assessee was allowed.2. The appeal was admitted on 4th Aug., 2006, by formulating two substantial questions of law, which read as under:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is justified in setting aside the assessment order, ignoring the provisions of Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 the AO validly issued notice under Section 148 of the Act?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is justified in allowing the exemption under Section 11(i)(d) of the IT Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that the objects of the trust providing benefit to Maheshwari community was hit by the provisions contained in Clause (i) of Section 13 in view of the decision in Ghulam Mohidin Trust v. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (J&K;) 367 : (2001) 248 ITR 587 , which is squarely applicable in this case?.3. The necessa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »