Rajasthan Court December 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surendra Pal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR963(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. These references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. Since the question of law involved in all thesecases is common, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The question of law framed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is as under:'Whether, on the proper interpretation and construction of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 would not apply to a case of disclosure made under Section 14 of the said Act ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the firm, Madira Kraya Vikraya Sangh, Kota, was carrying on the business of sale and supply of country liquor. The assessment of the firm was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, while assessing the firm, the Income-tax Officer had allowed refund in respect of the tax which was deposited under the Voluntary Dis...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Best Chem and Limestone Industries Pvt. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1992
Reported in: [1994]210ITR883(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated July 25, 1990, in respect of the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the activity of the assessee is clearly in the nature of manufacturing and, therefore, it is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings a claim in respect of investment allowance was made by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee is not manufacturing or producing any articles or things but extracting limestone from mines and selling the same. During this process sometimes he has to face hard stone veins which are extracted and sold in the shape of rodi. The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee is not...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Gani Mohd. Ismail
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR627(Raj)
K.C. Agarwal, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising out of its order dated October 23, 1980, in respect of the assessment year 1977-78:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 and the same being superfluous whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer was not an assessment made under Section 143(3) on the basis of the return filed by the assessee on August 30, 1978, under Section 139(4) and whether the provisions of Section 292B were attracted ?' 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment of the assessee-firm was made up to the assessment year 1971-72 and, according to the Income-tax Officer, no returns were filed for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. The return for the year in dispute, i.e., 1977-78, was ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Taranath Tondon
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR871(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated June 28, 1980, in respect of the assessment year 1972-73 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 12,423 levied under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was required to furnish the return of wealth as on March 31, 1972, on or before July 31, 1972. The return was filed on January 14, 1976, and thus there was a delay of 41 months. In the return submitted by the assessee, net wealth of Rs. 91,704 was declared but the assessment was made at a figure of Rs. 74,596 (sic). The main dispute is with regard to the property situated at Ajmer which was declared at a figure of Rs. 85,200, but the value of which was enhanced by the Wealth-tax Officer to Rs. 1,70,000. The basis for such enhancement was that th...
Madira Kraya Vikraya Sangh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR530(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated January 9, 1981, in respect of the assessment year 1968-69 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that though the shortfall was a trading liability, that could not be the claim in the order under appeal as the liability was yet to be settled and crystallised ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and carries on the business as a liquor contractor. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 (ending on July 31, 1968), the assessee entered into a contract with the Government of Rajasthan to carry on business in country liquor under the guarantee system. The liquor contracts are given by the Excise Department of the State Government in public auction and the contract was for a period of one year. Under the contract, the contrac...
S.M.S. Investment Corporation (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR1001(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order in respect of the years 1970-71 to 1972-73 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the interest on the amount advanced to Messrs. Citric India Ltd., Bombay, as per the agreement letterdated July 27, 1965, had accrued to the assessee-company following the mercantile system of accounting ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to Messrs. Citric India Ltd. and an agreement in this regard was executed on July 27, 1965. The amounts were to be advanced in instalments of Rs. 10 lakhs from February, 1966, and the loan was to carry interest at 12 per cent. per annum. The assessee-company advanced loans amounting to Rs. 15,37 lakhs as on June 30, 1969, Rs. 15.39 lakhs as on June 30, 1970, and Rs. 17.39 lakhs as on June 30, 1971. The interest am...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Plastic Dela Foot Wear
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR759(Raj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1973-74 ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and directing him to entertain the additional ground raised by the assessee ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an application under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was moved by the assessee praying therein for relief under Section 80J on the ground that the value of the asset has been taken at a lesser figure. It was found by the Income-tax Officer that the value of the asset has been taken at a figure of Rs. 5,33,215 instead of Rs. 5,45,892 and, accordingly, the mistake was rectified. The Income-tax Officer further found that, while computing the relief under Section 80J, the pre-paid expenses and expenditure not written off...
S. Zoraster and Co. (Supplies) Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR558(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law arising out of its order dated August 25, 1980, in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that non-completion of the books of account either for the earlier year or the current year without good reasons, cannot constitute a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the year under appeal? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that mens rea was established on the part of the assessee ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was required to file the return on or before July 31, 1974. No return was submitted and a notice was issued to the assessee under Section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was served on the assessee on October 15, 1974, in which the asse...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Best Chem and Limestone Industries Pvt. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1992
Reported in: (1993)113CTR(Raj)298
V. K. SINGHAL, J. :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dt. 25th July, 1990 in respect of the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the activity of the assessee is clearly in the nature of manufacturing and, therefore, it is entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings a claim in respect of investment allowance was made by the assessee. The ITO found that the assessee is not manufacturing or producing any articles or things but extracting lime stone from mines and selling the same. During these process some time he has to face hard stone veins which are extracted and sold in the shape of Rodi. The ITO came to the conclusion that the assessee is not a Small Scale Industrial Undertaking for the purpose of business of m...
C.i.T. Vs. Sanghi Oxygen Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC329; 1992WLN(UC)421
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Jaipur has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which have arisen out of its order dated 30.12.1978 is respect of assessment year 1973-74:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of the assessee in respect of gratuity payable was allowable under Section 37 or under Section 28(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of the assessee in respect of gratuity payable was not hit by Section 40A(7)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961?2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a registered partnership concern and derives its income from manufacture and sale of oxygen gas and acetylene gas etc. In the relevant previous year ending on 31st March, 1973 the assessee has actually paid Rs. 4,000/- by way of gratuity to certain employees who had retired. A claim...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »