Rajasthan Court October 1993 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.
M.D. Jewellers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-1993
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Raj)497; [1994]208ITR196(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated May 14, 1981, in respect of the assessment year 1971-72 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the validity of the Income-tax Officer's action under Section 147(a) read with Section 148 of the Act?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment of the assessee was completed on December 22, 1973. In the said assessment, a cash credit of Rs. 20,000 appearing in the name of Shri Raoveer Vikram Singh was found. The said amount was not disclosed in the assessment year at all. Later on, the Income-tax Officer discovered from the statement of Shri Raoveer Vikram Singh that the cash credit of Rs. 20,000 was not genuine and, therefore, he was of the view that the income represented by the cash credit and interest claimed thereon by the ass...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fundilal Rikhabchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-1993
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Raj)176; [1994]208ITR348(Raj); 1993WLN(UC)287
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated July 8, 1983, in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that in the fresh assessment proceedings on the directions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to enhance the assessment ?' 2. An assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act was finalised by the Income-tax Officer on October 6, 1976. The Income-tax Officer observed that the assessee has built a house, in the construction of which a sum of Rs. 48,337 was spent. The Income-tax Officer, who deputed the inspector to make the enquiry with regard to the construction, has estimated the investment to the extent of Rs. 56,800. On the basis of the report of the inspector, wherein a difference of Rs. 8,263 was f...
Hazarilal Vs. Additional Sr. Sub-judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1993
Reported in: II(1994)ACC262
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The non-petitioner No. 2 is a son of petitioner's uncle Shri Ram Pratap. He wanted to usurp the bus R.J.I. 2505 and permit under the pretext that under so called family arrangement the said bus No. R.J.I. 2505 and permit No. CH/382 has fallen to his share. The bus was ceased for want of documents by the Police Station, Rajgarh. Petitioner and non-petitioner submitted applications under Section 451 Cr. P.C. before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh. The interim custody of the said bus was given to non-petitioner No. 2. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the said order which is pending.2. It is alleged that non-petitioner No. 2 filed a Civil Suit Banwari Lal. Hazarilal and R.T.A. Bikaner in the Civil Court of Hissar for mandatory and prohibitory injunction to the effect that bus No. R.J.I. 641/2505 which fell to the share of the plaintiff in the family settlement arrived at Hissar on 5.7.1979 and the route permit No. CH/282 and the Registration Cert...
Ashok Kumar Aseri Vs. University of Jodhpur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1993
Reported in: AIR1995Raj33; 1994(1)WLC321
N.K. Jain, J. 1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance has been field by Ashok Kumar Aseri against the order of learend single Judge dated 7-4-1993 dismissing his writ petition. 2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this sepcial appeal are that thepetitioner-appellant was admitted in B.E. 1st year Course in the year 1989 in the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Jodhppur now knwon as J.N.V. University (hereinafter referred to as the University). He failed in eight theory papers and one sessional paper of Huminities in the year 1990. The petitioner-appellant again appeard in the year 1991 but was declared unsuccessful in four theory papers and two sessional papers. In the meantime on the representation of some other students of S.C./S.T. who were declared unsuccessful in five units, a Committee was constituted by the Vice Chancellor whose recommendations were accepted by the respondents and in pursuance of which Raj Kumar Meen...
Poonam Chand Prem Raj Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)116CTR(Raj)305; [1994]207ITR895(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order dated February 29, 1980, in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that a ginning factory is not a new industrial undertaking and as such not entitled to the deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the capital employed ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that expenditure incurred on customers is an entertainment expenditure ?' 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives its income from purchase of cotton and sale of cotton and cotton seeds which is obtained after ginning of the same in its factory at Bali. A claim under Section 80J/80HH was made in the revised return submitted by the assessee. The Income-tax Office...
PravIn Chand MohIn Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)116CTR(Raj)191; [1994]208ITR11(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated September 30, 1980, in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act :'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the words 'the assessee' occurring in Sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not referable to a Hindu undivided family and, consequently, the benefit contemplated by Section 54(1) as allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not available to the assessee-Hindu undivided family ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Hindu undivided family and has shown capital gains on the sale of the property known as 'Vinay Champa'. It was contended by the assessee that the construction of another building was made within a period of two years of the sale of the building and, therefore, the benefit of the provisions of Section 54 has to be given to it. The Income...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Power Plants Sale and Services Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1993
Reported in: [1994]209ITR655(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated March 25, 1981, in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty was exigible under Section 273(a) of the Income-tax Act in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76 and cancelling the penalty of Rs. 2,557 ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company and in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 which is the first assessment year the accounting period ended on May 51, 1974. A notice was issued to the assessee under Section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for furnishing the return for the assessment year 1974-75. The return was filed, declaring nil income, which was accepted by the Income-tax Officer and the order to this effect was passed on Sep...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajeshwar Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR926(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated June 24, 1983, in respect of the assessment year 1981-82 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the house rent allowance received by the assessee occupying his own house and not actually paying any rent, is exempt under Section 10(13A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a purchase officer with SCI Kota. The assessee claimed the house rent allowance exemption in spite of the fact that he was owning his own house. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the deduction is not allowable as per Rule 2A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.3. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, following the decision given in the case of CIT v. Justice S.C. Mittal allowed the appeal.4. In the second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by the Income-t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amber Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR435(Raj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order passed on April 9, 1981, in respect of the assessment year 1971-72 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deed of partnership of which four of the partners contributed immovable property known as Rambagh Palace as their capital did not require registration ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation in respect of the building, Rambagh Palace ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the declaration was legally made under Section 3 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975 ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maharaja Shree Ummed Mills
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR667(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench 'A' (camp at Jaipur), has referred the following two questions of lawarising out of its order dated May 21, 1981, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire surtax assessments having merged in the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax lost jurisdiction to revise the original assessment made in the case of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 16 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment of the assessee under Section 6(2) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »