Rajasthan Court March 1994 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. Rathi Gum Industries.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Raj)413; [1995]213ITR98(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order dated December 3, 1986, in respect of the assessment year 1980-81 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in concluding that interest under section 201 need not be levied on the assessee for non-deduction of tax at source for payment covered under section 194A on the reasoning that it would serve no useful purpose as the Revenue authorities have been fully satisfied of the taxes that would have been collected in the hands of the recipient ?(2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of subsidy received from the Central/State Government is not to be deducted from the cost of plant and machinery, building, etc., for working out the cost for the purpose of depreciation, investment allowance, etc. ?'The relevant facts so far as the aforesaid questions are concerned, are that the Income-tax Appellate Tribuna...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. 1. Loonkar Tools Pvt. Ltd. (D. B. I. T. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Raj)77; [1995]213ITR721(Raj)
The judgment of the court delivered byV. K. SINGHAL J. - All the above numbered income-tax references are decided by one common order as an identical question is involved in all of them. For the purpose of disposal of all the above numbered income-tax reference, the facts of Reference No. 29 of 1987 are being taken into consideration.The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated November 19, 1986, in respect of the assessment year 1981-82 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in coming to the conclusion that deduction under section 80HH be computed on commercial profits and in computing the commercial profits the assessee is entitled to require the addition of the provision for taxes, depreciation and investment allowance reserve to the net profit as per profit and loss account to arrive at commerc...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dwarka Das and Sons.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Raj)365; [1995]212ITR579(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated July 30, 1987, in respect of the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the amounts of gifts of joint family property made by the karta of joint family are not void but only voidable and that any income from the gifted property cannot be included in the hands of the owner - the Hindu undivided family - notwithstanding the fact that the gift was invalid under Hindu law and the gifted property was inseparable from the property owned and possessed by the donor ?'The brief facts of the case are that Shri Dwarka Das, karta of a Hindu undivided family, gifted one-third share of Shop No. 110 Dhan Mandi, Sriganganagar, to Sarva Shri Vinod Kumar, son of Shri Ram Kishan and Suresh Kumar, son of Shri Sangar...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ganganagar Fertilizer Corporation.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)126CTR(Raj)366; [1995]214ITR317(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated July 28, 1984, in respect of the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the partners of the firm by virtue of a partial dissolution deed hold certain properties which property originally belonged to the firm in the capacity of co-owners in the same ratio in which they shared the profits and gains from the business of the firm without going through the requirement of section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act ?'The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and had 17 partners. The firm had nine godowns and it was decided by the partners that the godowns should no longer be part of the sets of the firm but should be owned by the respective partners in the same ratio in which they shared the profits and gains from the business transa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. SaifuddIn and Others.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)128CTR(Raj)15; [1995]214ITR207(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL. J. - Since the question involved in both these references is common, they are disposed of by this judgment.At the instance of Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated September 1, 1986, in relation to the assessment years 1973-74 to 1979-80 under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the share of the assessee in the cinema building, while contrary to this the assessee has been claiming the ownership of the property and has been in possession of it since 1964 and was also enjoying the income therefrom ?'The dispute relates to the ownership of Chetak Cinema building. The firm, Chetak Cinema, entered into an agreement on September 19, 1964, for purchase of the building with Sanghi Brothers for a consideration of Rs. 7,50,000 and paid Rs. 7,00,000 as part of this sale consider...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Emery Stone Mfg. Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)126CTR(Raj)345; [1995]213ITR843(Raj); [1995]83TAXMAN643(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated November 24, 1988, in respect of the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the learned Members of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were legally justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and restoring that of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)s order, holding therefore, considering the facts of this case, in our view, the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in invoking Explanation 3 to section 43(1) when full facts were brought to the notice of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) who had allowed depreciation on actual cost to the assessee ?'The relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the above question are that the assessee had ot...
H. H. Rajdadi Smt. Badan Kanwar Medical Trust Vs. Commissioner of Weal ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Raj)13; [1995]214ITR130(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated May 23, 1988, in respect of the assessment years 1978-79 to 1984-85 under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order-sheet entry made by the Wealth-tax Officer dropping the proceedings commenced under section 14 or initiated under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years in question, without communicating it to the assessee, amounted to an order, which could be revised by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax in exercise of his powers under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-trust was settled by H. H. Maharaja Gaj Singh of Jodhpur, vide registered trust deed dated March 25, 1972. The settlor donated a sum of Rs. 53 lakhs to the trust, vide letter dated March 15, 1974. The money was lying in deposit with Messrs. Marud...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Saraswati Devi.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR445(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated February 19, 1986, in respect of the assessment year 1978-79 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the additions in question as a protective measure only ?'The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income declaring Rs. 5,995 as income. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was found by the Income-tax Officer that the assessee was not having any capital to start the business and the investment was made by her mother-in-law and it was the income of the assessees husband. In these circumstances, a protective assessment was made in the hands of assessee and unexplained cash credits and other items of Rs. 13,080 were added. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer, but, on a...
1. Jaswant Trading Company (D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 34 of 1985) ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR24(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL J. - Both the abovementioned cases are being disposed of by this common order since the questions of law involved therein are identical.In Reference No. 34 of 1985, the following questions have been referred by the Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1982-83 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the assessees case the honble Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no nexus established in this case between giving of donation on the one hand and the business perspective of the firm on the other and, therefore, the same was not allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act and only 50 per cent. deduction under section 80G was allowable ?2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the assessees case the honble Tribunal was justified in holding that the donations given to the several institutions were not given with a view to get either business benefit or for any business purpo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rehmat Khan.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Raj)384; [1995]213ITR134(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL J. - The Income-tax Appellate tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated July 28, 1986, in respect of the assessment year 1981-82 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the sum of Rs. 9,90,000 from the income of the assessee ?'The brief facts of the case are that the Income-tax Officer during the course of assessment proceedings found that as per the order of the Government, liquor shop of the assessee was required to be closed on Fridays and, accordingly, the shop remained closed on August 29, September 5, September 12, and September 19, 1980. The assessee worked out the licence fee at Rs. 1,84,000 and calculated profit at Rs. 18,400 and thereby claimed loss of Rs. 2,02,400 from the Excise Department. Similarly, the shops remained close...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »