Rajasthan Court August 1987 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Agarwal Shiksha Samiti Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Raj)95; [1987]168ITR751(Raj)
Israni, J.1. This is a reference made at the instance of the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), in which the learned Tribunal has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Agarwal Shiksha Samiti Trust was a part and parcel of Agarwal Shiksha Samiti or whether it was a separate assessable entity under the income-tax law ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-trust was not an educational institution within the meaning of Section 10(22) of the Act ' 2. This reference arises out of the return filed by the assessee, Agarwal Shiksha Samiti Trust, Jaipur, for the assessment year 1973-74, The assessee-trust was formed by a trust deed dated July 31, 1958, which was registered on October 29, 1958, with the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur City. The assessee claimed exemption of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H. H. Maharao Bhim Singhji.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: (1988)70CTR(Raj)80; [1988]173ITR79(Raj)
This common order shall dispose of all the aforesaid three references made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue.The relevant assessment years in Reference No. 88 of 1980 are 1973-74 and 1974-75. The assessment year in Reference No. 41 of 1980 is 1975-76. In Reference No. 89 of 1980, the relevant assessment years are 1976-77 and 1977-78.There is one common question of law involved in all these assessment years in respect of which these three references have been made and that is with regard to the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10(19A) of the Act in respect of the rental income earned by the assessee during these assessment years from a part of the official residence known as Umed Bhawan, Kota, let out by the assessee while retaining the remaining portion of Umed Bhawan for self-occupation. The question is, whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption from income-tax under section 10(19A) of the Act...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Khan Chand Madan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Raj)60; [1988]173ITR309(Raj)
1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue is to answer the following question of law :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c of the Income-tax Act, 1961, holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to levy the said penalty on May 25, 1978 '2. The relevant assessment year is 1973-74. The assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer on a total income of Rs. 80,070 on March 30, 1976, by making an addition of Rs. 10,000 in the trading profit and of Rs. 15,500 as income from undisclosed sources. The Income-tax Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer referred the penalty proceedings to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 16,000 by his order dat...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. H.H. Rajmata Gita Kumari of Kishangarh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: [1988]173ITR277(Raj)
1. This reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty to answer the following questions of law :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that after the merger of the Indian States, the impartible estate ceased to exist ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that after the merger of the Indian States, the private properties of the Rulers belonged to the HUF, if the HUF was in existence ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that at the time of the death of H.H. Maharaja Shri Sumer Singhji, the HUF was in existence and so the private property in question at the time of the death of Shri Sumer Singhji was only HUF property and as such he was not competent to dispose of the same ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, t...
Kashmir Singh Vs. Kartar Kaur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN164
M.C. Jain, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar dated March 28, 1979 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ganganagar, dated May 4, 1978. The learned Magistrate passed the order in proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.PC 11 months amount of maintenance at rate of Rs. 60/- was due from the husband present-petitioner. The learned Magistrate expressed that the husband can be punished to the extent of 11 months simple imprisonment. Thereafter, he stated that considering the circumstances of the case, he prescribed the punishment to the extent of 6 months, simple imprisonment. The warrant of arrest as ordered to be issued.2. The only question that arises for considerarion in the present petition is, as to whether the learned Magistrate was justified in passing the impugned order whereby sending the husband to six months sim...
Golecha Properties (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Raj)246; [1988]171ITR47(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. A consolidated reference has been made for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1974-75 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee for answering the following questions of law, namely :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessment orders did not become time barred under Sub-section (1) of Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in view of the provisions of the Explanation (1) to the said sub-section ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the realisations made by the official liquidator by running the business of the assessee-company are income liable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. If the answer to question No. 2 is in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that deduction on account of interest payable to the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Amar Kumari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Raj)237; [1988]169ITR255(Raj)
1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the Revenue to decide the following question of law:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy the impugned penalty under Section 271(1)(c)?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1972-73.3. The assessee is an individual. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on March 22, 1975, assessing the total income at Rs. 51,747 making an addition therein of Rs. 36,000 as ' income from undisclosed sources'. The Income-tax Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in view of the fact that the penalty leviable exceeded the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner after hearing the assessee imposed a penalty of Rs. 23,400 by his order dated Jan...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shah Brothers
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR19(Raj)
1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act is at the instance of the Revenue for deciding the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment completed by the Income-tax Officer on February 13, 1973, was barred by limitation ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1967-68 for which the accounting period ended with the financial year. The assessee was required to file the return under Section 139(1) of the Act on or before September 30, 1967, but instead of filing the return, the assessee filed an application for extension of time. Thereafter, another application was filed seeking further extension of time for filing the return till November 25, 1967. No order was passed by the Income-tax Officer on any of these applications and the return was also not filed by the assessee till November 25, 1967. Thereafter, the assessee made no further prayer for extension of time beyond No...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Niwas Rice and Oil Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: [1988]169ITR253(Raj)
1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue is to decide the following question of law, namely:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy the said penalty on March 23, 1978 '2. The relevant assessment year is 1973-74. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on February 27, 1976, by including an amountof Rs. 53,457 to the returned income and he also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the matter was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner since the amount of concealed income exceeded Rs. 25,000. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner issued a show-cause notice to the assessee on March 1, 1978, and after obtaining the assessee's reply, imposed penalty under Section 271(1)...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan Industrial and Chemical Corpo ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Raj)67; [1988]171ITR22(Raj); [1988]36TAXMAN206(Raj)
JAIPUR BENCHThis reference under section 256(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the Revenue to decide the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax to entertain an appeal against the levy of interest under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The relevant assessment year is 1973-74. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on an income of Rs. 1,01,290 and directed recovery of penal interest from August 16, 1973, to the date of filing of the return in response to the notice. The amount of penal interest was computed at Rs. 13,195. The assessee filed a quantum appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and therein also assailed the imposition of interest charged under Section 139(8) of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the appeal was not competent against the imposition of interest under section 13...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »