Rajasthan Court October 1992 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate P ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR556(Raj)
1. The assessee claimed Rs. 99,375 incurred on repairs of kucha roads. It was in respect of the construction of roads at the factory in Chainpura, Ghewaria Mines and Shiv Bhandar. According to the assessee, the roads were kucha and the expenditure had been incurred for facilitating the running of the motor vehicles for transportation of goods from the mines to the factory. The expenditure was claimed to be of revenue nature.2. The Income-tax Officer took the view that the expenditure being substantial and the roads being of enduring nature, the expenditure was of a capital nature.3. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the addition made by the Income-tax Officer.4. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal took the same view as that of the Commissioner and, as such, it found that the money spent for the repairs of roads was not of enduring nature and was consequently revenue.5. Against the aforesaid judgment, the Commissioner of Income-tax moved an application under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Lal Vs. the Prescribed Authority Under the Rajasthan Shops and C ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)568
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the judgment dated October 31, 1981, passed by the Authority under the shops and Commercial Establishment Act, by which the learned Authority maintained the order dated November 15, 1978, passed by the Chairman, Mewar Textile Mills Staff Cooperative Consumers' Stores, Bhilwara, terminating the services of the petitioner and directed the defendant to make payment of Rs. 800/- as compensation to the petitioner.2. Petitioner was working as Helper to the Salesman at M.T.M. Staff Consumers Cooperative Stores, Bhilwara. Some reports of embezzlement were received against one Jagdish Chand. An enquiry against him was held. During the course of the enquiry, it came to the notice of the defendant that the petitioner was knowing regarding the embezzlement made by Jagdish Chandra, but knowingly he did not disclose it to the Authorities and, therefore, a notice (Annexure. 1) was issued to the petitioner on September 19, 1978, to s...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Lal Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1992
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ628Raj
M.C. Jain, J. 1. This special appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated December 16, 1991 by which he has summarily dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellants for quashing the award dated May 29, 1989 (published on August 7, 1989) declaring the termination of the respondent Lal Chand as illegal and directing his reinstatement with full back wages. The facts of the case may be summarised thus.2. On April 23, 1983, the respondent Lal Chand was appointed as a Conductor. On April 20, 1984, he was performing his duty on petitioner-appellants' bus No. 5694 going from Anopgarh (Sri Ganganagar) to Ferozpur (Punjab). In the way, it was checked by the Inspectors Jagat Narain Khatri and Sohan Singh Gill. They found that 58 passengers were travelling in it without tickets. They prepared necessary documents on the spot and got the signature of the Conductor Lal Chand on them. His services were terminated on April 21, 1984. Conductor Lal Chand took...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Raj76; 1992(3)WLC314; 1992(2)WLN489
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. The abovenoted special appeal and the special appeals mentioned in the enclosed schedule are against the common order dated February 7, 1991 and subsequent orders passed on different dates in other writ petitions on the basis of this common order. This common order is reported as Chandmal v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 1991 (1) RLR 627 : AIR 1992 Raj 95. By this order, the learned single Judge has held that the pre-emptory conditions including model condition of vehicles which are contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called 'the New Act') and Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (hereinafter called the 'New Rules') shall stand automatically set aside.2. Relevant facts may be summarised thus. Certain petitioner-respondents were existing operators and they applied for the renewal of their non-temporary stage carriage permits under which they were plying their vehicles. Other petitioner-respondents applied for non-tempora...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Gopi Chand Rawat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR853(Raj)
1. This reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Revenue, is to answer the following questions of law, namely:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules was not applicable in the assessee's case and consequently in deleting the addition made by the Wealth-tax Officer ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Messrs. Maliram Pooranmal is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 5(1)(xxxii) and subsequently in holding that the value of the assessee's interest in the firm is exempt under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1981-82 in respect of which this reference has been made for answering the above questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order in support of the assessee.3. So far as the first point referred is concerned, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLN246
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition and the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule A appended to this order have been placed before this Division Bench on reference being made by Hon'ble Mr. Rajesh Balia, J while disagreeing with the view taken by Hon'ble Mr. V.K. Singhal, J. in Sadanand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 31/1991, decided on 25.5.1992. The following two questions have been framed by the learned Singh Judge which read as under:1. Whether the power to relax a rule conferred on the Government under Rule 65 of the Rules of 1986 also takes within it the power to substitute an existing rule with a new rule ?2. Whether the State Government has authority under Rule 65 of the Rules of 19689 to direct for charging dead rent in a given case at rate different than the prescribed under the Rules, without amending the Rules itself?2. In order to understand the controversy raised in these writ petitions, the facts given in the case of Hari Singh v. St...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaipur Oil Company
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR661(Raj)
V.S. Dave, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the Department.2. This application is in respect of assessment year 1975-76 and has arisen out of the Income-tax Appeals Nos. 526/JP of 1987 and 527/JP of 1987 dated January 13, 1988. The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide its order dated August 26, 1988.3. The Department's case is that Messrs. Jaipur Oil Company is a bogus firm though it was floated with the following partners, namely, Shri Chetandas, Smt. Vani Bai, Shri Dilip Kumar, Miss Lajwanti Devi, Miss Maya Devi and Shri Kishan Kumar. The Income-tax Officer had come to the conclusion that there is no partner who could be said to be considered to exercise any control over the affairs of Messrs. Jaipur Oil Company and such control was in fact exercised by Chula Ram who was the father of the four minor sons admitted to the benefits of partnership. He also came to the conclusion that Messrs. Jaipur Oil Company existed...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ratan Chand Lodha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR503(Raj)
1. We have heard learned counsel for the Department at length. His submission is that this is a fit and proper case where the Tribunal should have come to the conclusion that there was concealment of income and the penalty should have been imposed as contemplated under Section 273(2)(a) of the Act. We are not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel on the simple ground that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal firstly came to the conclusion that it could not be said to be a case of false estimate and secondly that the amount involved is a very petty amount. It has been held in CWT v. Executors of Late D. T. Udeshi : [1991]189ITR319(Bom) and CWT v. Girdhari Lal Saraf , that in cases where the amount involved is petty, the reference should not be called for merely for the sake of arguments.2. We are in agreement with what has been held in the above two cases and besides this we are also of the opinion that there is a difference between an approach to be...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zenith Commercial Agencies.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-1992
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(Raj)332
ORDERBY THE COURT :This application under s. 256(2) is in respect of asst. yr. 1981-82 wherein application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act was rejected by the Tribunal on 23rd December, 1987. The following two questions of law have been mentioned in the petition for which reference is required to be called for :'(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not under an obligation to deduct tax at source under s. 194A of the IT Act, 1961 and consequently directing the ITO to remit the interest charged under s. 201(1A) of the IT Act ?(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not holding that unless there was a valid justification for crediting interest to any account, other than the account of the payee, the credit to the account, such as Interest Account (in Profit & Loss Account) would amount to constructively crediting the payee account ?'2. The point involv...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Gokul Dass Pradeep Kumar Rathi.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-1992
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Raj)26
ORDERBY THE COURT :This application has been find under s. 26(3) of the GT Act in respect of asst. yr. 1976-77 arising out of the GTA No. 9/Jp/87 dt. 21st August, 1987. An application under s. 26(1) of the GT Act was filed before the Tribunal which was rejected on 18th August, 1988, hence this application. In the application filed by the petitioner he submitted that following question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal which requires to be answered by this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of shares held by the assessee in M/s. Krishna Limited, Beawar should be taken on the basis of yield method ?'2. This point was also subject-matter of an application filed under s. 27(3) of the GT Act in D.B. WT Ref. Appln. No. 45/1990. CWT vs. Seth Gokuldas Pradeep Kumar Rathi, [since reported in (1992) 105 CTR (Raj) 113], wherein this Court relying on the decisions of the CWT vs . Mahadeo Jalan : [1972]86...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »