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.
Shree Pipes Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-1994
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC304; 1995(79)ELT405(Raj); 1994(3)WLC36; 1994(2)WLN553
Magh Raj Calla, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13th July, 1992/7th October, 1992 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Customs Division, Ajmer, which has been filed with the writ petition as Annexure-35, whereby the petitioner's claim for refund of a sum of Rs. 2,86,379.55 has been rejected.2. A licence of the Public Bonded Warehouse was granted on 11th February, 1986 as per Annexure-1 in the premises of M/s. Shree Pipes Limited, Village Ojhada, Bhilwara, the owner of such Bonded Warehouse was M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation, Ojhada, Bhilwara. On 12th February, 1986 a letter was sent to M/s. Shree Pipes Limited, i.e., the petitioner by the Superintendent, Central Excise Customs Range, Bhilwara to deposit the amount of Rs. 77,422.80. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid amount was . deposited 'under protest' and further amounts in this regard was also deposited by the petitioner as and when required and according to the pe...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. J.K. Panth and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN449
ORDERS. Admittedly, no notice was served upon either of them under Rule 6 of the Rules terminating the appointment. It is also not mentioned in the subsequent order Annex.-7 appointing new Advocates as Deputy Government Advocates that the appointment of the petitioner- respondents has been terminated or directing them to hand over the charge to the newly appointed Dy. Government Advocates. Rule 6 of the Rules specifically requires that the appointment of a Government Advocate shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice of one month in writing. In their appointment order dated June 05, 1985 (Annex.-l), it is clearly mentioned that their appointment is governed by the Rules including Rule 6. We do not, therefore, find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge, warranting our interference. The facts and circumstances of Harpal Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. : 1993CriLJ3140 are quite different and distinguishable. It does not help the appellants.6. Accordingly, the spec...
Gajanand Vs. Kailash Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN492
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 5.8.84 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhilwara Under Section 20 of the Provincial Insolvency Act by which the interim Receiver was appointed in respect of properties mentioned in Schedule B and Schedule C attached with the Insolvency petition moved Under Section 9 of the said Act on 30th April, 83.2. On 30th April, 83 Kailash Chandra filed an application Under Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for adjudging respondents No. 3 to 7, namely Girdharilal, Jamnalal, Gopal lal, Om Prakash and Shyam Sunder, member of Joint Hindu Family Girdharilal-Jamnalal as insolvent. Application Under Section 28 was also moved. Schedule C was annexed with the petition showing the property belonging to and in possession of non-applicants Nos. 1 to 6 in the petition. 25 properties were shown in Schedule B which were alleged to be transferred during the period from 29.1.88 to 12.2.83 to the non-petitioners Nos. 7 to 25. The Addition...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Basanti Bai (Late) (Through Gulab C ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR163(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 1, 1981, under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased had no interest in the properties of the Hindu undivided family except the right of maintenance and, therefore, no coparcenary interest came to cease on the death of the deceased under Section 7 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased lady was the widow of one Panthoo Lal, who died in 1928. On the death of her husband, the property passed to her. In the year 1942, she had adopted Gulab Chand as her son. Gulab Chand got married and he had four children. The deceased expired on July 9, 1977. In the estate duty proceedings a question arose as to what properties and to what extent had passed on her death. The accountable persons claimed that t...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sobhag Family Benefit Trust
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR289(Raj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order, dated April 14, 1981, in respect of the assessment years 1975-76 to 1977-78 under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 3,50,000 could not be included in the assessment of the trust for the year under consideration ?'2. On the last date of hearing on September 7, 1993, learned counsel for the Department wanted to verify as to whether the amount of Rs. 3,50,000 which is now sought to be included in the wealth of the trust was also included in the wealth of the executor and tax paid accordingly.3. It has been stated that the said sum was included in the wealth of the executors and the tax has been realised thereon. Besides this fact, the Revenue Department failed to point out before the Income-tax Tribunal that the assessee-trust acquired the asset, namely, R...
Registan Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR333(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated November 3, 1987, passed under Section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and also to set aside the criminal complaint and the proceedings pending in the court of the Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, in Criminal Case No. 282 of 1987. 2. In the order dated November 3, 1987, the Commissioner of Income-tax found that the assessee wilfully attempted to evade tax, penalty and interest on Rs. 6,32,446 which it claimed as alleged bad debts and alleged payment of commission, etc. It was held that the assessee had committed an offence punishable under Section 276C(1) of the Act. The entries of bad debts of Rs. 1,63,153 were made on the last date of the relevant assessmentyear 1981-82. A sum of Rs. 4,74,062 was claimed as export promotion expenses of which the details were not furnished and subsequently it was informed that it was commission paid ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Narbada Shankar Bhikkabhai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: (1995)128CTR(Raj)36; [1995]211ITR277(Raj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order, dated October 10, 1980, for the assessment year 1977-78 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in refusing registration to the firm ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership-firm consisting of the following five partners :1st partySri Hirlal Maganlal Bhatt14 per cent.2nd partySri Narbhadashanker Hiralal7 per cent.3rd partySri Manshanker Maganlal Bhatt10 per cent.4th partySri Bhikhalal Mahashanker Bhatt11 per cent.5th partySrimati Sarda Shivashanker Bhatt21 per cent.3. The Income-tax Officer found that the profits as per the partnership deed were not divided amongst the parties and the division was only to the extent of 63 per cent. without there being any provision or mention in respect of the re...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Official Liquidator, Golecha Property
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: [1994]207ITR576(Raj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order, dated May 21, 1982, in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the receipt of Rs. 1,00,101 was capital receipt and not revenue receipt and was not taxable ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has taken a plot of land from Smt. Jatan Kanwar for construction of a cinema hall. Due to financial problems the company went into liquidation and the work of construction of the cinema was not completed. The official liquidator was pressed by the creditors of the assessee-company to surrender the plot of land along with the incomplete structure of the cinema to the original owner, namely, Smt. Jatan Kanwar. The lease of the plot was given for a sum of rupees 5,00,000 for 99 years. The owner agreed to make the payment of the advance of...
Registan Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Raj)44
V. K. SINGHAL, J. :This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dt. 3rd Nov., 1987, passed under s. 279(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and also to set aside the criminal complaint and the proceedings pending in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, in Criminal Case No. 282 of 1987.2. In the order dt. 3rd Nov., 1987, the CIT found that the assessee wilfully attempted to evade tax, penalty and interest on Rs. 6,32,446 which it claimed as alleged bad debts and alleged payment of commission, etc. It was held that the assessee had committed an offence punishable under s. 276C(1) of the Act. The entries of bad debts of Rs. 1,63,153 were made on the last date of the relevant asst. yr. 1981-82. A sum of Rs. 4,74,062 was claimed as export promotion expenses of which the details were not furnished and subsequently it was informed that it was commission paid to a foreign agent and the entry was also passed on the ...
The Executive Engineer P.W.D. and anr. Vs. the Judge, Labour Court and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC316; 1994(1)WLN416
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record of the case2. Award dated 27th July, 1993 passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur in case No. L.C.R. 189/86, is under challenge in this writ petition.3. Facts of the case are that the workman-Ram Narain son of Tejpal who was employed in the P.W.D., Sub Division-A, Jaipur City on 1.7.1980 was retrenched from service by notice dated 29.6.1985. Retrenchment of the workman became subject matter of a dispute between the parties and when the parties failed to arrive at settlement, the Government made a reference of the dispute by notification dated 20th June, 1987.4. In his statement of claim, the workman pleaded that notice of retrenchment dated 29.6.85 was served upon him on 1.7.85 and, therefore, termination of his service with effect from 29.6.85 was brought about without giving him one month's notice. A subsequent notice issued on 27.7.85 extended the date of termination of service to 30.7.85 but that too was not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »