Rajasthan Court August 2008 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nanalal Teli
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Raj)186
ORDER1. This appeal by the Revenue seeks to challenge the order of the learned Tribunal dt. 7th Feb., 2005, regarding asst. yr. 1993-94. The Tribunal by the impugned order decided two appeals; other being related to the year 1994-95 which involved a different controversy. Before the Tribunal appeal was filed by the Revenue, seeking to challenge deletion of Rs. 1.5 lacs on account of sale of mines at Umaty. The AO had made this addition on the basis of the statement of the assessee recorded during survey proceedings, wherein the assessee stated to have sold the mine, allotted to him in the year 1988-89, in the year under consideration, for a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs to M/s Kothari Marble Industries, Pasoond, and the Revenue also challenged the deletion of Rs. 50,000, added on account of unexplained investment in the acquisition of mines at Nijarana, which was deleted on the ground that the assessee had Rs. 1.5 lacs with him for such an expenditure, in the absence of any proof on record to sh...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hycron India Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Raj)288; [2009]308ITR251(Raj); [2009]185TAXMAN70(Raj)
ORDER1. These two appeals filed by the Revenue Involve common question of law, and are therefore, being decided by this common order. Both the appeals have been admitted by different orders dt. 30th July, 2007 and 19th April, 2006, but by framing the same substantial question of law. It is different story, that the question as framed in appeal No. 45/2006, as such, does not arise in appeal No. 111/2007, inasmuch as appeal No. 45/2006 arises out of appeal of the assessee filed before the Tribunal, against invoking of the powers under Section 263 of the IT Act, while appeal No. 111/2007 arises out of the regular appeal, filed by the assessee, with respect to the different year. But then the central question, about the entitlement of the assessee, to claim exemption under Section 10B. on the interest income, earned from M/s Wolkem India Ltd. is involved in both the appeals, and therefore, these two appeals are involving common question of law.2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the necessar...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Sunil Suji and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1172
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Impugning the judgment dated January 11, 2008 rendered by learned Additional. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Jaipur City, the State of Rajasthan submitted petition seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.')2. On July 1, 2008 this Court granted leave and issued no bailable warrants against the accused respondents. The order reads as under:It is contended that all the accused respondents were in jail. We have been taken through the impugned judgment and our attention has been drawn towards various illegalities committed by learned trial court. It is further contended that the admission of accused respondents Rohtash ad Dharmendra respectively incorporated in Ex.P-74 and Ex.P-75 have been ignored by learned trial court. Recovery of revolver affected under Section 27 of Evidence Act has also not been properly considered.Leave granted. Accused respondents Sunil Suji, Naseeb Singh, Rohitash @ Chhotu...
Tag this Judgment!Paras Mal Mali Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)SLJ166(Raj)
ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.6.2005 (Annexure-10) passed by Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department whereby the representation of the petitioner filed in accordance with the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2591/2003 was rejected.2. Brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was appointed for collection of revenue/octroi by the Gram Panchayat, Samdari, Panchayat Samiti Siwana. Not only the petitioner but so many other persons were also appointed as 'chungi nakedar' for collection of octroi in different Gram Panchayats. The petitioner was appointed on 7.4.1995 and continued upto Agril, 1998. The petitioner is possessing qualification of Senior Higher Secondary acquired from Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. The optroi collection system was abolished in the year 1998 and the persons including the petitioner were directed to be absorbed agains...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Girish Agarwal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1630
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. The petitioner in this case has challenged the order of suspension dated 23.5.03 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan. It has been prayed that the impugned order of suspension be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in the month of March 2003 there were certain complaints against the non qualified medical practitioners in District of Kota, alleging that some of them are not having the requisite degrees and there are others who are having fictitious certificates. Some others are having licenses which had not been renewed. In this regard, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural) had also made complaint to the petitioner, vide letter dated 11/03/2003. The petitioner was reported that the Registered Medical Practitioners had not been getting their license renewed since long and there had been complaint against...
Tag this Judgment!Mangala Ram Vs. Bar Council of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj609; 2009(3)SLJ160(Raj)
R.C. Gandhi, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the Resolution dated 23.4.2007 passed by the Bar Council of Rajasthan and Resolution dated 4.7.2005 of the Bar Council of India, whereby the resolution of the Bar Council of Rajasthan for Incorporating Rule 1(A) to the Rules framed by the Bar Council of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, in exercise of its powers under Section 28(2)(d) read with Section 240(1)(e) of the Advocates Act, 1961, has been approved.2. The disqualifications for admission and enrollment of the Advocates to the State Bar Council have been prescribed and stipulated in the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). Section 24 of the Act deals with admission of the Advocates on the roll of the State Bar Council. Section 24A deals with disqualifications for enrollment of the Advocates. Section 28 provides the rule making power of the Bar Councils of the Spates to carry out the purpose of Chapter III. Section 24 and 24A are cont...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Nathilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2406
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 17.10.2002 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Bharatpur (Rajasthan) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 74/2001 by which he acquitted the accused-respondents for the offences under Section 307, 307/149, 326, 326/149 IPC but convicted the accused-respondent No. 1 for the offences under Section 148, 325, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC and rest of the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 148, 325, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC but released all the accused-respondents by giving benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offender Act 1958.2. In brief, the facts of the case are as under:Complainant Mathura S/o Rajaram (PW.l) lodged a written report (Ex. P./1) in police Station Kumher with this effect that today at 6-6.30 P.M. he and his brother namely jagdish, Thakuralal, Mahesh and Ramwati W/o Jagdish w...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Madan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2415
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 25.8.2004 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the learned trial court') in Criminal Case No. 414/2000 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. In brief, the facts of the case are as under:Food Inspector Chotmal Sharma (PW. 1) has submitted a complaint against the accused-respondent on 9.8.2000 before the learned trial Court with this effect that on 1.4.2000 at about 10 A.M. on inspection he saw the accused respondent Madanlal selling the milk, he identified himself, the accused respondent having an iron drum in which he stated that there is 20 Kg. goat milk in it. He asked accused-respondent about licence of selling milk on which he stated that he is not having any licence. On suspect of adulteration, he paid the amount and purchased...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Inani Marbles (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2008
Reported in: [2009]316ITR125(Raj)
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 16-5-2005 deciding cross appeals of the assessee and the revenue whereby dismissing the appeal of the revenue and partly allowing the appeal of the assessee, and maintaining the gross profit rate to be applied at 2.51 per cent.2. The appeal was admitted on 4-4-2006 by framing the following substantial question of law:Whether acceptance of GP Rate by the Tribunal is not sustainable in law because it is based on ignoring the relevant material concerning assessee's own result of the previous year which vitiates the finding?3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the impugned judgments. The assessing officer rejected the books of account for valid reasons, and invoked provisions of Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, and made assessment by applying gross profit rate of 15 per cent on the sales disclosed by the assessee, and accordingly additions were made to t...
Tag this Judgment!Pintoo @ Kamal Kishore and anr. and Kalua @ Koshal Kishore Vs. State o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ748
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Can the court depend solely on the probity of investigation? Can criminal justice be made casualty for the wrongs committed by Investigating Officer? These are the pivotal questions springing up for consideration in the instant appeals, which have been preferred against the judgment dated December 13, 2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3 Bharatpur Camp Bayana by Pintoo @ Kamal Kishore, Susya @ Lokesh and Kalua @ Koshal Kishore, who were convicted and sentenced as under:Susya @ Lokesh:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Pintoo @ Kamal Kishore and Kalua @ Koshal Kishore:Under Section 302/34 IPC:Both to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. BACKGROUND FACTS:2. The prosecution story is woven like this: On September 17, 1999 around 6.45 PM informant...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »