Rajasthan Court April 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. Rajasthan Land Development Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)125CTR(Raj)261; [1995]211ITR597(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated July 4, 1980, and August 1, 1980, in respect of the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79, respectively :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that interest income earned by the assessee should be assessed as business income ?'2. In Reference No. 109 of 1983, the question referred is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee has carried on business of advancing money on special and ordinary loans and such earnings should be assessed as business income ?'3. Since the questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order are the same, both these references are disposed of by this common order.4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public undertaking incorporated by Act No. 17 of 1975, i.e., th...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Miss (Dr.) Vinay Rae
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR531(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Wealth-tax Commissioner has made the application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), with the prayer that the following question which arises out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a question of law and, therefore, the Tribunal should be directed to refer the same to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse inasmuch as the relevant material was not properly evaluated and wrong conclusions were drawn ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that H.D. Rae was owning agricultural land measuring 14 bighas 11 biswas at Jamuna Dairy, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. The value of the said land was declared at the figure of Rs. 1 lakh. In the assessment year 1971-72, the value was declared at Rs. 2 lakhs. Taking into consideration, the situation of the land and the rate at which the land was sold by other persons in the earlier ye...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate P ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Raj)180; [1995]211ITR555(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. Though three questions were raised before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Act in respect of the assessment year 1973-74, before us only the following question has been raised :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs. 97,691 made under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The application under Section 256(1) in respect of the above question was rejected on the ground that the interest on the funds borrowed for the purpose of business was allowable and is settled by the decision of the Appellate Commissioner (from the assessment years 1952-53 to 1966-67 except assessment year 1961-62). The reference application was also rejected in respect of the other year on July 16, 1977. The facts giving rise to the above question are that the assessee-company had advanced loans to it...
Sanjay Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN428
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner has joined M.B.B.S. course at Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner on 27.2.92. After completing first year M.B.B.S. Course in the month of September, result of which was declared in November, 93, the petitioner applied for his transfer to S.P. Medical College, Bikaner within the time prescribed for such transfer. The petitioner also obtained a No Objection Certificate from the Government as well as from the S.P. Medical College, Bikaner which disclosed that the admission of the petitioner to S.P. Medical College, Bikaner will be within the 5% intake capacity of the said college. This N.O.C. is dated 3.12.93. Both the N.O.Cs. Annexure 3 dated 3.12.93 and Annexure 4, dated 7.1.94 were placed before the Principal, S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur. However, the petitioner alleges that Principal, S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur is not so far taken any action for issuing a mandamus to the respondent No. 4 in this regard.2. Though, no reply has been filed but it ...
Roopram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj9
J.R. Chopra, J. 1. This special appeal isdirected against the order of the learned single Judge dated 15-1-1992 passed in S.B. CivilWrit Petition No. 126 of 1991, whereby white following a decision of this Court in Chaina Ram v. State of Rajasthan 1988 (1) RLR 343 : AIR 1989 NOC 12 (Raj), the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by petitioner-respondent No. 6 Shri Ram-chandra and has quashed the order dated 4-1 -1991 passed by Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jodhpur.2. The facts, necessary to be noticed, for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are: that elections for Mandukara Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Mandukara were scheduled to be held in the month of December 1990. The Voters' list was published on 3-12-1990. The petitioner-respondent No. 6 Ramchandra was one of the voters and was also one of the contestant for membership of the Managing Committee of the aforesaid Cooperative Society. It is alleged that 21 persons filed their nominations befo...
Santu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj213
1. As common issues have been raised in all the petitions mentioned-above, the same are being disposed off by a common judgment. 2. In all the aforesaid petitions the Board of Revenue has refused to entertain second appeal/revision of the petitioners on the ground that petitioners have not deposited 25% of the reserved price of land allotted to the petitioners as per the requirement of the relevant rule of the Rules under which the application for allotment of land of the petitioners were refused or allotment already made under the said rules in favour of the petitioners have been cancelled. 3. The relevant Rule 10A of the Rajathan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees in Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules 1972 (in short hereinafter called as the 'Pong Dam Rules') and Rule 23 A of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules 1975 (in short hereinafter called as the 'Rules of 1975), which was inserted in...
20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Partap Rajasthan Special Ste ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1994
Reported in: [1994]81CompCas369(Raj)
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, with a prayer to order winding up of Partap Rajasthan Special Steels Ltd., Jaipur, on the ground that it is just and equitable and in the interest of justice to wind up the company on account of huge financial losses suffered by the company.2. Notice of this petition was ordered to be issued by the court on July 27, 1990. After service of notice, the respondent-company appeared and brought to the notice of the court that a reference had been made by the company to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. The court, therefore, adjourned the proceedings on more than one occasion. On August 13, 1993, counsel for the company brought to the notice of the court that by an order dated December 27, 1991, the company has been declared a sick industrial company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. 3. The argument of Shri Par...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Roy Durlabhji
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR470(Raj)
1. The Revenue has prayed for the following question of law to be directed to be called for from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 4,53,990 levied under Section 271(1)(c) ?'2. The reference application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was dismissed on the ground that the additions which were made by the Income-tax Officer were finally deleted by the Income-tax Officer and the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was challenged under Section 256(2) of the Act before this court. The reference application submitted by the Revenue with regard to the additions had already been dismissed and learned counsel for the Revenue has informed that the matter has not been taken to the apex court and, therefore, the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal deleting the additions has become final. In the present case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribuna...
Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1994
Reported in: [1994]95STC143(Raj); 1995(3)WLC133
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the action of the respondents dated March 31, 1993, by which, the seizure of the goods of the petitioner and dispossession from the shop was effected.2. The petitioner is a dealer under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act'). A shop was taken on rent in the year 1977 from Shri Gani Khan and the business was carried on in the name of Babu Lal Ramesh Chandra. The petitioner is carrying on the business of selling the utensils.3. It has been submitted that the sales tax due for the years 1986-88 were of Rs. 410 which was deposited on March 30, 1990 and with regard to demand for the period 1982-86 neither any demand notice was served on the petitioner nor any amount was informed to be due from him. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward II, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, came to the business premises of the petitioner on March 31, 1993 in the absence of the petitioner and seized the goods ly...
Dilip Bhatanagar and ors. Vs. Rajasthan Agriculture University
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)WLC42; 1994(1)WLN468
ORDERThe question of temporary staff being made permanent has been engaging the attention of the University. It has been felt that the employee with satisfactory service for a specific period may be considered and be made permanent if there is a clear vacancy. Non-issue of such orders leads to dissatisfaction amongst the employees.It has been decided after due consideration that the temporary members of the staff of a cadre may be made permanent if they have rendered satisfactory service and there are no adverse remarks reported against the employee and if he has completed a period of two years on the post. Action in this matter may be initiated immediately in all such cases. sd/- REGISTRAR.61. On the aforesaid basis, the petitioners contended that if they had rendered satisfactory services and there is no adverse remarks, then they are entitled to be regularised as permanent employee' without taking any test. It may be noticed that the basic requirement is that the incumbent must have...