Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Court: rajasthan Year: 1978 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.028 seconds)

Jan 25 1978 (HC)

Rajasthan Felts Manufacturing Co. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-25-1978

Reported in : [1980]45STC274(Raj)

..... in national clinic v. assistant commercial taxes officer, sri ganganagar 1966 r.l.w. 257, turned up on the interpretation of section 34 of the indian income-tax act and the other cases reported in sahachari udyog mandir, falna v. state of rajasthan (1972) vi t.r. 202 and bhikkilal chhotey lal v ..... believe' impose a condition to the exercise of the power to make reassessment under section 34 of the indian income-tax act, 1922. unlike section 34 of the indian income-tax act, section 12(1) of the rajasthan act uses the words 'if for any reason, the whole or any part of the business of a ..... presided over by the present chief justice, held that the words 'any reason' appearing in section 12(1) of the rajasthan act are of wide import and the scheme of the indian income-tax act is entirely different. in state bank of india v. shri n. sundara money a.i.r. 1976 s.c. 1111, ..... which the income-tax officer received from the audit department be construed as an information within the meaning of section 147(b) of the income-tax act, 1961. their lordships of the supreme court, after considering the ratio decidendi of a catena of cases reported in maharaj kumar kamal singh v. ..... , j.1. the petitioner, m/s. rajasthan felts manufacturing company, is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing woollen felts, etc. it is a registered dealer under the rajasthan sales tax act and the central sales tax act.2. for the assessment year 1968-69, the petitioner-firm filed returns claiming exemption .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1978 (HC)

Rajasthan Felts Manufacturing Company Vs. the State of Rajasthan and o ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-25-1978

Reported in : 1978(11)WLN76

..... , j.1. the petitioner m/s rajasthan felts manufacturing company is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing woollen felts etc it is a registered dealer under the rajasthan sales-tax act and the central sales-tax act.2. for the assessment year 1968-69, the petitioner firm filed return ..... the supreme court, while interpreting the words 'any reason' appearing in that act, observed that the use of words 'any reason' which are of wide import, dispenses with those conditions by which section 34 of the indian income-tax is circumscribed placing reliance on the same case, a, division bench ..... of this court in bhanwarlal binjaram v. assistant commercial taxes officer, jodhpur 1976 wln 459, presided over by the present chief justice, held that the words 'any reason' appearing in section 12(1) of the rajasthan act ..... the income-tax officer received from the audit department be construed as an information within the meaning if section 147(b) of the income tax act, 1961. their lordships of the supreme court, after considering the ratio decidendi of a catena of cases reported in maharaj kumar kamalsingh v. commissioner ..... assessment and not granting of exemption and the assessing authority is clothed with the jurisdiction to take action under section 12(1) of the rajasthan act. whether the grounds are adequate or not, is not a matter which can be gone into by this court, for the sufficiency of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 1978 (HC)

Paras Ram and anr. Vs. the State

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-07-1978

Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)157

..... impugned order dated 25.8.77. it is against this order that the petitioners paras ram & tejumal have preferred this petition.3. it is alleged by the prosecution that a partnership firm of which tirathdas, narayan das, paras ram and tejumal were partners started its business at hanumangarh. on behalf of this firm tirathdas and narayan das purchased go ds worth ..... , he has taken me through the complaint, statement of sushil kumar recorded by the police during investigation and has urged that no case under section 420/109 and 468/139 ipc was made against tejumal and the court while framing the charge against him has abused the process of the court and in the interest of justice this order be quashed ..... court of judicial magistrate no. 1, hanumangarh.2. a complaint was filed by one sushil kumar against four persons including parasram petitioner for the offences under section 420 and 468 ipc in the court of first class judicial magistrate no. 1, hanumangarh, that complaint was sent by the learned magistrate for investigation under section 156(3) cr.p.c. the police .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 1978 (HC)

Bhanwar Lal and Dhan Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-12-1978

Reported in : 1978(11)WLN546

..... 26, 1976, was thus not credited, this led to the lodging of the first information report against the applicant as well as his father under sections 420, 467 and 468 ipc. the applicant bhanwarlal and his father dhanraj submitted an application under section 438 crpc. the application under section 438 crpc was submitted on behalf of the applicant and his father ..... station home officer, pali, on june 6, 1978, under sections 420, 467 and 458 of the indian penal code against the applicant and his father dan raj. it was alleged in that report that this firm m/s chandmal dhanraj dharoliya which is a partnership firm and whose partners amongst; others are applicant and his father dhanraj was having bill purchase account ..... in a court for achieving the higher and the main purpose of a court, namely, the purpose of doing justice in a case before it and for seeing that the act of the court does no injury to any of the suitors. the learned judges were of the opinion that the circumstances requiring the use of such a power cannot be ..... . in the exercise of the power under sub-section (2) of section 10 of the rajasthan high court ordinance, 1949 read with sections 54 and 57 of the states reorganisation act, 1956, the learned judge was nominated to sit at the jaipur bench from july 3, 1978 by the hon'ble chief justice in these circumstances, it was not possible that .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //