Rajasthan Court October 1986 Judgments
Prem Cables Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC124; 1987(11)LC717(Rajasthan); 1987(32)ELT363(Raj); 1987WLN(UC)63
S.S. Byas, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner Challenges the legality of the order Annexure 6, dated October 11, 1977, by which the petitioner was advised to take out a licence and pay duty on dross and skimmings.2. Briefly recounted, the relevant facts are that the petitioner is a private limited company dealing in the manufacture of the aluminium rods out of aluminium ingots. In the manufacturing process undertaken by the petitioner for the purpose of extracting pure aluminium and separating impurity, ingots are put into furnace. While pure aluminium stands extracted by this process, the impurities are thrown out. This impurity is known as dross and skimmings. The contention of the petitioner is that no Excise duty is leviable on this dross and skimmings under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ('the Act' hereinafter). However, on June 18, 1977, Item No. 68 came to be inserted in the First Schedule, which provided that duty shall be levied at 10% ad valorem on all other g...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Satnam Malik.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Raj)175; [1987]167ITR764(Raj); [1987]32TAXMAN204(Raj)
S. S. BYAS J. - In pursuance of the directions issued by this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 15,500 levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for concealment of income ?'Briefly recounted, the material facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee is an individual. The assessment year in dispute is 1967-68. The assessee filed the return for the aforesaid year on September 14, 1967, declaring an income of Rs. 3,986. Subsequently, she filed a revised return on July 29, 1971, declaring an income of Rs. 11,703 therein. The Income-tax Officer determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 67,907 by his order, annexure 1, dated March 28,...
Tag this Judgment!Khet Mal Vs. Gram Panchayat and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)26
S.S. Byas, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of order Ex. 9 passed on July 30, 1983 by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur and prays for quashing the same.2. Material facts leading to this writ petition may briefly be recounted as under: Gram Panchayat, Chohtan (district Barmer) issued a notice for sale of the plot of land in dispute by public auction. The auction took place on March 2 and 3, 1981. The petitioner made the last and the highest bid for a sum of Rs. 9991/-. His bid was accepted and he deposited 20% of the sale price immediately on the spot. As the bid of the land auctioned exceeded Rs. 5000/- in amount, the Panchayat applied for approval of the Collector, Banner as required under Rule 265(3)(ii) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (here in after to be referred to as 'the Rules'). The Collector, Banner, by his order Ex. 6 gave his approval. The petitioner ther...
Tag this Judgment!State Farms Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Tarsem Lal Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)516
S.S. Byas, J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated March 27, 1985, by which the respondent's (Tarsemlal) writ petition was allowed, his removal from service was set-aside and directions were issued restraining the appellants from initiating a fresh inquiry against him on the same charges.2. Briefly recounted, the relevant facts are that the respondent Tarsemlal (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') presented a writ petition with the averments that he was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India by the then General Manager of the Central Mechanised Farm and was confirmed in due course. His services were lent on deputation to the State Farms Corporation of India Ltd. (for short, 'the Corporation'). In 1972, he was working as the Upper Division Clerk in the Central State Farms of the Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Golcha Properties (P.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)61CTR(Raj)185
1. This case relates to three assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. The office is, therefore, directed to register three cases separately for the above-mentioned three assessment years as Case Nos. 7 of 1978, 7A of 1978 and 7B of 1978, respectively.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 220(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were inoperative in the case of a company which was in liquidation by the orders of the winding-up court ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest under Section 220(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not chargeable in the case of the assessee-company ' 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Golcha Properties (Private) Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee-company', went into liquidation and the management of the company ca...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Raj)27
ORDERA. K. Mathur, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order (Annexure 5) passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dt. 15-11-1985.2. The respondent No. 2, the assessee, is a contractor. He received total payments of Rs. 7,72,226 and Rs. 9,70,000 and disclosed net profit of Rs. 68,582 and Rs. 97,010 for two years, i.e., 1980-81 and 1981-82, respectively. Since the respondent No. 2 did not maintain proper books of account and as such profits could not be accepted, the ITO invoked provisions of s. 145 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He applied net profit rate of 12.5% in 1980-81 and 12% in 1981-82 and passed the orders of assessment accordingly. The respondent No. 2 being aggrieved against these orders preferred an appeal before the AAC who by his order dt. 4-2-1984 after considering the arguments held that rate of 12% in both the years is reasonable. Aggrieved against this order, the respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The T...
Tag this Judgment!BIn Raj Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN452
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order Annx. 3 dated 2-12-1985 passed by the Board of Revenue2. The petitioner is in actual physical cultivatory possession of the disputed Bera Peeple-wala situated in the Sarhad of Raipur comprising of Khasra No. 1615 measuring 5 bighas 7 biswas Chahi Aawal, Khasra No. 1616 measuring 1 biswa Gair Mumkim Bera, Khasra No. 1617 measuring 7 biswas Gair Mumkim Sada and Khasra No. 1618 measuring 8 biswas Gair Mumkin. Thus in all 6 bighas and 3 biswas of land was in possession of the petitioner since 1-6-1970 as mortgagee from Mohanlal. Respondent Bhagwan son of Pratapji filed a suit in the court of Assistant Collector, Jaitaran against the petitioner and others for declaration and permanent injunction. Along with the suit the non-petitioner Bhagwana also filed an application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC for temporary inju...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Saini Vs. Malviya Regional Engineering College Society and a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN177
Mahendra Bhusan Sharma, J.1. The petitioner is working on the post of Issue Assistant in the library of Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur (for short, the College) and by virtue of his status he is entitled to allotment of a 'F' type quarter. Earlier, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Genitor which was a class IV post and was later on promoted as Library Attendant. Under order dated March 10, 1978 the petitioner was allotted a quarter No. H-36. The quarter H-36 is said to be a part of the Principal's bungalow and there is another quarter H-35 which is also a part of the said bungalow. Quarter No. H-35 was allotted to Nathu Singh, a class IV servant. The petitioner and the said Nathu Singh were occupying quarters Nos. H-36 & H-35 respectively since the date of allotment. An order dated April 9, 1986 was issued from the College under which the term of allotment of the quarter H-36 was extended upto June 30, 1986 and the petitioner was directed to make alternative arra...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Lal Vs. Chunni Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN393
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of an amount of money from the defendant on the basis of promissory note alleging that the loan had been advanced to the defendant for purchase of some goods for his Kirana shop. The defendant denied the plaintiff's case and contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff was a money-lender who had not complied with the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963 on account of which the suit was liable to be dismissed in its entirety according to Section 26 of the Act. The trial court decreed the suit but the defendant's appeal to the District Court succeeded and the suit has been dismissed. Hence this revision by the plaintiff because of Section 102, CPC.2. The appellate court has clearly held that the provisions of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963, apply. Plaintiff being a money lender who has not produced his licence and has also not complied with the provisions of...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Through Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Income-tax Appel ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)126
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order (Annx. 5) passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dated 15-11-1985.2. The respondent No. 2 assessee is a contractor. He received total payment of Rs 7,72,226/- and 9,70,902/- and disclosed net profit of Rs. 68582/-and Rs. 9,7010/- for two years, i.e. 1980-81 and 1981-82 respectively. Since the respondent No. 2 did not maintain proper books of accounts and as such profits could not be accepted and the Income-tax Officer invoked provisions of Section 145. He applied net profit rate of 12.5% in 1980-81 and 12% in 1901-82and passed the orders of assessment accordingly. The respondent No. 2 aggrieved against these orders preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who by his order dated 4-2-1984 after considering the arguments held that rate of 12% in both the years is reasonable. Aggrieved, against this order, the respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the Income-tax...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »