Rajasthan Court March 1985 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Zinc Limited.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Raj)222
ORDERBy the Court - Heard ld. counsel.The CIT has filed this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (No. XLIII of 1961) (for short the Act) for a direction to the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (the Tribunal therein) to state the case and refer the following questions of law for our opinion, which are said to arise out of its order dt. 27-10-1983, passed in Misc. Applications No. 32 and 33/Jp/80, which arose out of ITA Nos. 1106 and 1107/Jp/76-77 :'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in considering the miscellaneous application of the assessee and rectifying the original order beyond the time limit prescribed under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ?(2) Without prejudice to the above, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was really a mistake apparent from record in the original order ?'By order dt. 27-10-1983, the Tribunal has rectified its order dt. 12-6-1978, passed on the assessees appeal relating to ...
Tag this Judgment!Subeer Singh Tamra Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1985
Reported in: (1987)55CTR(Raj)163; [1987]165ITR95(Raj)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.The Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, issued a show-case notice to the assessee, Shri Subeer Singh Tamra, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 to show cause why the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer under section 143(1) of the Act for the aforesaid two years may not be reopened on the ground that they were erroneous and were prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The assessee did not appear and an ex parte order was passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax on September 10, 1981, setting aside both the assessments and directing the Income-tax Officer to take de novo proceedings from the stage of the return after making the necessary inquiry.The assessee filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The Tribunal although held that the notice issued by the commissioner under section 263 of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Bansilal Chatarlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN283
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's civil first appeal against the judgment of the Civil Judge. Udaipur dated 11-2-1974 granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 16340/- with costs.2. The plaintiff firm filed a suit for refund on the ground that the defendants have realised Rs. 5/- per quintal on export of food grain without the authority of law.3. The plaintiff obtained permits for export of 3268 quintals of Tuvar and Urd pulses from the Collector, Udaipur during the period 23-12-1967 to 13-2-1968 and paid an amount of Rs. 16340/- for obtaining these export permits calculated at rate of Rs. 5/- per quintal. The amount was deposited in the Government Treasury, Udaipur by means of challans filed in the case and which are in dispute.4. The plaintiff's case is that charging of Rs. 5/- per quintal for giving permit for export of pulses was not based on any legal authority and consequently it was illegal. It amounts to a tax or fee for exporting goods in whic...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Aggrwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Budh Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN600
Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.1. Budhprakash Non-petitioner No. 1 filed a complaint in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Deeg against six persons under Section 4 of the Dowry Act, 1961. He alleged that the complainant offered to marry his daughter with Ashok Kumar son of Sohan Lal. This proposal was accepted and on 30-1-1983 the 'Rok' ceremony was held and the complainant paid some money to the boy Ashok Kumar for the ceremony. Thereafter Sohanlal performed the 'Goad' ceremony of the girl. Some 'Milni' etc., was also performed on that day. It is further alleged that Budhprakash was called by Sohanlal to Mathura and when he went to Mathura, Sohanlal demanded Rs. 31,000/- and also gave a list of the articles to be given in dowry in the marriage. He also told Budhprakash that if this dowry was not accepted the proposal for marriage would be dropped. The 'Pili-Chitthi' which was sent was also returned. It is further alleged that on 6-3-1983 Sohanlal, Ashok Kumar, Sunehrilal, Omprakash,...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1985
Reported in: [1987]64STC96(Raj)
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. The Board of Revenue by order dated October 31, 1977, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:On the facts and circumstances of the case what should be the rate of tax on sealed tins which are sold filled with vanaspati and for which separate charges are made in the bills ?2. Brief facts leading to this reference are that Shri Suraj Bhan Bhargava, Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, made an inspection of the premises of M/s. Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Company Ltd., Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), on November 11, 1971. On inspection it was found that tins of vanaspati ghee of 16.5 kg. sold prior to October, 1971, the price of tins was not realised separately and sales tax used to be realised at the rate of vanaspati ghee itself. However, after October, 1971, the assessee started showing the price of the tins separately and charged sales tax at the rate of 3 per cent. The sales tax on vanaspati ghee was at the rate of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pratap Vs. Smt. Manphool
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN700
Vinod Shanker Dave, J. 1. This revision petition is finally disposed of as agreed to by both the learned counsel. This revision petition is directed against the order of Munsif, Srimadhopur date December 5, 1981, when he passed it under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction)Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as ' the Act'), determining the rent. An appeal against that order was filed which has been dismissed by the Civil Judge, Nim-Ka-thana, Sikar by his judgment, dated July 12, 1984.2. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the trial court has not considered the material on record while adjudicating the application under Section 13(3) of the Act. He had mentioned in his application that he had paid the rent to the plaintiff but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial court. I have gone through the written statement as well as perused the orders of the courts below. A bare reading of the written ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhajan Lal Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN659
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to the construction of a water course through kila Nos. 5, 6, 15, 16 and 25 of Square No. 21 of Chak No. 57 MP in Tehsil Sadulpur, District Sri Ganganagar. It may be pointed out that kila Nos. 5 and 6 referred to above belong to Bhajan Lal, while kila No. 15,16 and 25 belong to Surajbhan. So far as Bhajanlal is concerned, the Revenue Appellate Authority has pointedly observed that he had given his consent to the construction of the water course in dispute.2. The original record of the Irrigation Department was produced before me by the learned Deputy Government Advocate. It appears from a perusal of the 'Rajinama statement' that Bhajanlal had expressed his consent to the construction of the water course and put his thumb mark in the 'Rajinama' in token of his consent. Besides that, there is a separate statement of Bhajanlal recorded, in which he has specifically stated that he bad no objection to the constructio...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Radha Mohan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN183
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21-9-73 of Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 9 of 1972.2. The plaintiff joined as Medical Officer in the Medical Department of the erstwhile State of Jodhpur. On 7-4-49 Jodhpur State merged in the State of Rajasthan. The plaintiff continued to serve the Medical and Health Department upto 1st March, 1972.3. On integration the services of the Medical Officer were classified into C.A.S. Class I and CAS Class II. The plaintiff was ultimately selected to the post of C.A.S. Class I on 17-4 59 after his selection by the Public Service Commission. He was appointed C.A.S Class I vide Government Order No. 2754 effecting from 1-4-50, but the emoluments of O.A.S. Class I were not given to him.4. In the civil suit filed by the plaintiff the State contested the claim on merits. It was pointed out that he became CA.S. Class I on 27-4-54 and not earlier.5. The learned t...
Tag this Judgment!Jugal Kishore Vs. Ram Bux and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN588
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a revision petition by the defendant Under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order dated December 16, 1978, passed by the Additional Munsif, Bhilwara, by which he allowed the plaintiff-non-petitioners to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit.2. The plaintiff-non-petitioners instituted a suit for ejectment against the tenant-petitioner on the ground of material alteration. The written statement was filed contesting the suit. When the case was fixed for final arguments, the plaintiff-non-petitioners submitted an application on Nov. 11, 1978 praying that they may be permitted to withdraw the suit, for the suit was in respect of the trust-property and all the trustees having not been joined as the plaintiffs, it suffers from the formal defect and, so, permission may be granted for bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter. The learned Additional Munsif by his order dated December 16, 1979, permitted the withdrawal of the suit wi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gyan Prakash GuptA.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1985
Reported in: (1987)54CTR(Raj)69; [1987]165ITR501(Raj)
S. K. MAL LODHA J. - At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ('the Tribunal' herein), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was in law justified in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax was right in annulling the assessment for the assessment year 1965-66 made by the Income-tax Officer ?'This question is said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal dated May 31, 1978, passed in I.T.A. No. 1277(JP) /1977-78, in respect of the assessment years 1965-66 and 1967-68.The assessments for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1967-68 were completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (No. XLIII of 1961) for short ('the Act'). It was discovered by the Income-tax Officer ('the ITO') that the assessee, Mohanlal (deceased), failed to disclose the material fa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »