Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2006)204CTR(Raj)401; [2006]283ITR304(Raj); RLW2006(2)Raj1170; 2006(2)WLC111
Rajesh Balia, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The substantial questions of law which arise for consideration, as framed at the time of admission of the appeal, are as under:-1. Whether the bonus, the liability of which is not provided in the accounts, and which has not been incurred as an expenditure, can be deducted for the purposes of arriving at the total income Under Section 115J of the I.T. Act ?2. Whether the guidance note of the Institute of Chartered Accountants could override the provisions of the Income Tax Act so as to compute deduction claimed under Section 80HHC ?3. The respondent-assessee is an Indian Company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing pesticides. It also exports its product outside India amongst other business. In respect of profits of such export business Section 80HHC applied.4. Prior to making assessment Under Section 143(3) for assessment year 1990-91, the Assessing Officer had issued an intimation under Section 143(1)(a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : I(2006)ACC673
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant has challenged the award dated 26.4.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,86,000 to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the death of their son, Samunder Singh @ Samdarshi.2. According to the claimants, on 12.5.2003 their twenty years old son was travelling in a jeep along with some of his friends in order to attend a marriage in village Macharia. It was alleged that, the said jeep was driven by respondent No. 4 Mangal Singh. It was further claimed that after the jeep passed the Jatoli Mod on the Rajakhera road, suddenly, the jeep driver accelerated the jeep. Despite the request of the passengers to slow down the jeep, he did not pay any heed to their suggestion. Consequently, the jeep collided with a Tata-407, as a result of which two boys namely, Samunder Singh @ Samdarshi and Neeru expired on the spot. Since, the Tata-407 was untraceable, therefore, the claimants filed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(4)Raj2989
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants, three in number, along with Smt. Lali (wife of deceased Shravan) faced trial in Sessions Case No. 14/99 before the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Dausa (for short 'trial judge') who vide Judgment dated July 20, 2002, while acquitting co-accused Lali, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:--Peeru Shah, Shafi Shah and Chhote Lal:Under Section 302 & 302/34 IPC:Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Under Section 449 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.Under Section 201 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment eight months and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.Under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PA) Act:Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2006Raj27; RLW2005(4)Raj3008; 2005(4)WLC568
V.K. Bali, J.1. Ayodhya Bai, who was not blessed with any child and at the relevant time when she executed Will dated 6.9.1969 bequeathing all her properties to Geeta Press, had lost her husband as well. She did adopt Praveen Kumar son of her husband's brother Gopi Kishan but, as mentioned above, preferred that all her properties should go to Geeta Press, thus debarring her adoptive son to inherit the said properties by way of natural succession. Ayodhya Bai breathed her last on 14.4.1970 and on her demise, the executors of the will named above made an application Under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of a probate with regard to the Will said to have been executed by Ayodhya Bai on 6.9.1969. The matter was contested by the adoptive son of Ayodhya Bai namely Praveen Kumar and Gopi Kishan, natural father of Praveen Kumar. Learned Distt. Judge, Ajmer, vide orders dated 22.12.1978 dismissed application of the executors. Aggrieved, the executors of the Will filed an appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2006)ILLJ531Raj; RLW2005(4)Raj2719
Jain, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 13.1.04 passed by the Special Judge, Sati Nivaran, Rajasthan and Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur whereby Cr. Revision Petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed against the order dated 17.7.02 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby an application filed by petitioners under Section 204 Cr.P.C. to drop the proceedings was rejected.2. The complainant non-petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur for the offence under Section 406 and 409 IPC alleging that accused No. 1 to 4 are Directors of accused No. 5 M/s. Perfect Thread Mills Ltd., Udaipur. The accused persons deducted the amount of Employees State Insurance from the salary of the employees for the period from August, 1987 to February, 1988 but did not deposit the same with the Department. The learned trial Court took cognizance agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2006Raj31
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act has been preferred by the husband-Mustafa against the judgment and decree dated 6-11-2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 106/2002, whereby the learned Judge accepted the petition for dissolution of marriage submitted by the wife-Khursida under the provisions of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 ('the Act of 1939' hereinafter). 2. Brief facts relevant for the present appeal are that the respondent submitted petition before the Family Court, Jodhpur on 6-5-2002 seeking dissolution of her marriage with the appellant contracted by her parents on 15-10-1992 fundamentally on the ground that she was 7 years 23 days of age at the time of the marriage, her date of birth being 23rd September, 1985 which was also entered in the passport of her mother. According to the respondent, the marriage was never consummated and there was no cohabitation ever between the parties; ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2005)197CTR(Raj)401; [2006]280ITR168(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. In all these cases whether are references made under Section 27 of the WT Act, 1957, or are appeals under the same section as amended w.e.f. 1st Oct., 1998, the common set of facts giving rise to a common question, as raised in these cases, on the happenings which took place in the accounting period since 1965-66, the matters relate to various assessment years as per the details which are given in Appendix 'A'.2. To make the record of proceeding complete, we notice the questions referred in wealth-tax references, and wealth-tax appeals.3. In RA Nos. 97 to 102/Jp/1996 at the instance of assessee, the question referred to by the Tribunal is as under :'Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in treating the assessee to be the owner of the gold in question and estimating the value of the assessee's interest in the said gold at 25 per cent of the market value of gold on the relevant valuation date ?'(b) The question referred to in RA Nos. 114 to 119/Jp/1996 at the i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj210
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ the petitioner challenges the award made by Labour Court, Jodhpur on 27.6.1997 in connection with dispute referred to it relating to alleged illegal termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 23.11.1992.2. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the competent conciliation officer at Jodhpur being aggrieved by his alleged retrenchment from services. The parties to the dispute failed to reach at any agreement during conciliation proceedings, therefore, a failure report was submitted after considering to which the industrial dispute was referred by appropriate government under a notification dated 11.12.1993 to Labour Court, Jodhpur for its adjudication. The industrial dispute referred to Labour Court, Jodhpur by notification referred above is in the following terms:D;k xksfy;'k fMVsDVho ,tsalht izk-fy- lh&43] egkohj ekxZ] t;iqj Jfed Jh czts'k ukjk;.k iq= fxj/kjukjk;.k ekFkqj 15@179 PkkSikluh gkmflax cksMZ] tks/kiqj ds fu;kstd gSa ;fn ugh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : IV(2005)ACC265
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 30.8.1993 rejecting the claim application of the claimants.2. The Tribunal in the impugned order has held that the tractor RND 9210 and tractor trolley RNB 8472, whose owners are respondent Nos. 1 and 2, was registered only for carrying out the agricultural operations and since in the accident which occurred on 29.3.85 at 10.00 a.m. in which deceased Laxmi Narain was riding on the said tractor trolley on payment on hire charges at Re. 1 per passenger and who died on account of the said tractor trolley turning turtle on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle and for the death of Laxmi Narain, the Insurance Company could not be held liable for such user of motor vehicle in violation of the policy condition.3. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company appearing in the matter has cited before me the judgment of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2005)199CTR(Raj)427
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for. the appellant. In spite of service no one present for the respondents.2. This appeal is directed against the order of Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dt. 27th Oct., 2003. The substantial question of law framed at the time of admission for consideration in this appeal is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions which have been made after invoking the proviso to Section 145 of the Act and whether the finding of the learned Tribunal is perverse ?' 3. The facts of the present case are that the assessee-respondent is a liquor contractor for wholesale and retail sale for both country liquor and Indian made foreign liquor. The assessee has submitted his return for asst. yr. 1993-94 showing his total income as 18,27,180 as per P&L; a/c which was reduced (increased) to Rs. 22,73,630 while issuing intimation under Section 143(1)(a) after making certain adjustment.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!