Rajasthan Court October 1992 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.
Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR415(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following two questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 :'1. Whether the remuneration as was originally paid, Rs. 1,56,901, as per orders then existing is allowable or the remuneration which was restricted by a subsequent order dated October 29, 1976, to Rs. 1,20,000 is to be allowed as an expenditure for the assessment year 1976-77 ?2. Whether, for the purpose of allowing a claim for remuneration to the managing director, it could be said that the limit prescribed under Section 40(c) of the maximum remuneration of Rs. 72,000 would apply only to cases where the pre-requisite condition that the remuneration paid was excessive in nature or not is complied with by the Department ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the company has made payment of Rs. 1,56,901 to its three directors. The Company Law Board, vide or...
Sanghi Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR303(Raj); 1993(1)WLC631; 1992(2)WLN182
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question arising out of its judgment under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the entire amount paid by the assessee to the Sales Tax Department could not be allowed as a deduction in computing its total income for the relevant accounting years ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a dealer in Tata motor parts. Certain motor parts were purchased by the assessee from within the State of Rajasthan, on which Rajasthan sales tax was paid. While supplying such parts to the Government Departments, the assessee has charged sales tax in addition to the value of the goods. The amount of sales tax so collected was not deposited in the Government Treasury and the entire amount of sales tax was credited in mal khata along with the sale price of the goods. The ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Co-operative Supply and Commission Shop ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1992
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Raj)34
ORDERV. K. SINGHAL, J. :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has referred the following question under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, for decision of this Court, in respect of the asst. yr. 1978-79 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the interest of Rs. 17,292 received by the co-operative society from 13 members and from bank on outstanding balance could qualify for exemption under s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act ?'2. The facts of the case are that during the course of examination of books of accounts of the assessee, the ITO found that the interest paid by the members on the closing balance as at the end of the accounting years, was of Rs., 15,167 and the assessee has also received interest from the bank of Rs. 2,125. The ITO came to the conclusion that the said amount of Rs. 17,292 does not qualify exemption as provided under s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, 1961. According to the ITO interest from the members attributable ...
Ram Dayal Sharma Vs. the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC390; 1992WLN(UC)522
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This wilt petition has been filed challenging the election programme and postponement thereof and the procedure and election itself to be declared as illegal in respect of Mandawar Krayar Vikraya Samiti Ltd. Madawar.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies Bharatpur, Zone Bharatpur appointed Shri Sukhdev Prasad Sharma, Inspector (Executive), Cooperative Societies, Mahuwa as election officer to conduct the election of the Mandawar Kraya Vikraya Samiti Ltd. Mandawar. The election programme was published by the election officer in which the process was stalled from 26th December, 1991. Prior to this, the election of the society was scheduled to be held on 12th August, 1991. In the meantime an ordinance was issued which contemplated that the total number of Directors would be nine and from endividuals there would be two Directors. For the election of Board of Directors only the President or the Vice President can act as the repr...
Bachumal Uttam Mal and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC71; 1992(2)WLN107
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The following questions have been raised by the asessees under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that penalty imposed Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is justified ?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty so Imposed is valid in the eye of law as the returns In question were submitted in consequence of settlement arrived at the filing of return Under Section 148 was merely a valid procedure to give the assessment a valid shape.3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Tribunal is right in the eye of law in upholding that penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act in respect of income of Rs. 11,000/- as surrendered for the purchase of peace of mind and to avoid litigation in view of the settlement arrived at Under Section 132 of the I...
Shanker Lal Yadav Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)232
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. The petitioner by means of this writ petition as prayed that the respondents be directed to send him for training of the Inspector, Land Records forth with and after such training to promote him on the post of Inspector, Land Records on and from the date he became entitled as per his seniority and to allow him all consequential benefits.2. Briefly, the relevant facts are that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. He was appointed as Patwari in the Land Revenue Department vide order dated 16.12.64 and consequent thereto he joined the said post on 15.1.65. Thereafter, he was put to work on the post of Assistant Office Kanungo vide order dated 18.3.70 and temporarily promoted to the post of Inspector, Land Records, vide order dated 15.6.77. Thereafter, he was reverted back to the post of Patuari by order dated 14.2.80 on the ground that he had not taken the training of the Inspector Land Records. Again vide order dated 7.1.88 (Annexure R. 1), he was promoted to ...
Vijai Singh Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-1992
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ1038Raj; 1993(1)WLC577
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Challenge in this writ petition has been made to an order dated April 8, 1983 (Annexure-4) passed by the Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Ajmer for termination of the service of petitioner on the basis of departmental inquiry held against him. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner who was serving as a conductor in the service of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') was suspended on July 9, 1982. A charge sheet dated July 9, 1982 was served upon him for a departmental inquiry. By an order dated August 20, 1982 of the Regional Manager, Ajmer, Regional Depot Manager was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Inquiry proceedings were fixed on September 21, 1982, October 7, 1982, October 20, 1982, November 6, 1982, November 19, 1982, December 10, 1982, December 23, 1982, January 17, 1983, February 4, 1983 and February 14, 1983. The petitioner attended the inquiry on February 14, 19...
Dinesh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC285; 1992(2)WLN315
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition has challenged the legality of retrenchment order dated 26.3.91 terminating his services w.e.f. 31.3.91 (Annex. 6), notice of retrenchment under Section 25F(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(In short, 'the Act') (Annex. 7) and forwarding letter (Annex. 5) and prayed that those be quashed, and prayed that he be reinstated in service with full back wages; and that his services be also regularised with all consequential benefits.2. Briefly, the matrix which has led to filing this third writ petition against the respondents can be recapitulated like this. It appears that Dy. Personnel Manager (I & M) of the Indian Telephone Industries Limited, Installation and Maintenance Unit No. 5, Banglore, by his letter dated 3rd November, 1987 (Annex. 1) informed the petitioner regarding recruitment of temporary Supervisors (Civil) for their Installation work to be undertaken in Punjab, Rajasthan and Jammu against the Turn Key ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›