Rajasthan Court November 1995 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan Co-operative Spinning Mills L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1995
Reported in: [1997]225ITR574(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the assessment year 1975-76, at the instance of the Revenue, . has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) direction that the amount of 20 per cent. has to be calculated with reference to the profit and loss account of the assessee and deductions on account of depreciation, initial or additional depreciation, development rebate, investment allowance, adjustment on account of unabsorbed depreciation, additional depreciation, investment allowance, development rebate, etc., are not to be adjusted at all and agreeing with the Income-tax Officer in allowing deduction under Section 80HH with reference to profit as per profit and loss account of the assessee. They further erred in quashing the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sunil and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Raj)202
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J. :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the Revenue, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that :(i) the amount of subsidy received by the assessee should not be deducted from the cost of assets for the purposes of allowing depreciation ?(ii) Investment allowance being special deduction under the IT Act for the purposes of computing the income, cannot be deducted from the commercial profits for the deduction under s. 80HH of the IT Act. ?'2. An identical question to question No. (i) referred above, came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs . Ambica Electrolytic Capacitors Pvt. Ltd. & and before the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs . P. J. Chemicals Ltd. : [1994]210ITR830(SC) For the reasons given in CIT vs. Ambica Electrol...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajasthan Co-operative Spinning Mills L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Raj)200
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J. :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the asst. yr. 1975-76, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming CIT(A)s direction that the amount of 20% has to be calculated with reference to the profit and loss account of the assessee and deductions on account of depreciation, initial or additional depreciation, development rebate, investment allowance, adjustment on account of unabsorbed depreciation, additional depreciation, investment allowance, development rebate etc. are not to be adjusted at all and agreeing with the ITO in allowing deduction under s. 80HH with reference to profit as per profit & loss account of the assessee. They further erred in quashing the order passed by the CIT for asst. yr. 1980-81 ?'2. The identical question came up for consideration before the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Synthetic Stones
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1995
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Raj)594
In the High Court Rajasthan B.R. Arora & B.J. Shethna, JJ.B.R. Arora, J1. The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the assessment year 1982-83, at the instance of the revenue, referred the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act :Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in :(1) confirming the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that cash assistance of Rs. 79,328 is not liable to be taxed;(2) holding that while computing depreciation and relief under section 80J the cost of assets should not be reduced by the amount of subsidy received by the assessee; and(3) in holding that deduction under section 80HH should be allowed before deducting deduction under section 35B ?'2. The material facts, on the basis of which question No. (1) is to be decided are similar to the facts in D.B. IT Ref. No- 7 of 1990, CIT v. Saboo Emery Stones and the above-quoted question No. (1) is ide...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chand Modi Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: [1997]225ITR541(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the assessment year 1977-78 under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :' Whether under the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case and whether under a true and correct interpretation of Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, the assessee is entitled to grant of exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of factory land and building owned by the partnership firm styled as Hindustan Radiators, which, in fact, collectively belongs to the partners ?'2. It is contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the question framed by the Tribunal does not arise in the present case because the Wealth-tax Officer, Central Circle, Jodhpur, disallowed the claim of the assessee for the exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act as the factory building is not covered under this definition and the question refer...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajasthan Tractors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Raj)369
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the asst. yr. 1986-87 referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the unpaid sales-tax liability, if paid within the time allowed under Sales-tax Act should not be disallowed by virtue of s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The material facts on the basis of which the above question of law is to be decided are similar to those in DB IT Ref. No. 9/92, CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj decided on 27th March, 1995 [reported at (1995) 128 CTR (Raj) 325]. The question referred for the opinion of the High Court is identical with the question which were referred in DB IT Ref. No. 9/92. While answering the reference in DB IT Ref. No. 9/92 CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj (supra) this Court held as under :'The Tribunal was justified in directing that the amount of unpaid sales-tax liabilities ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hari Store.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Raj)134
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J. :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the asst. yr. 1987-88, referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that unpaid sales-tax liability, if paid within time allowed under Sales-tax Act should not be disallowed by virtue of s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The material facts, on the basis of which the above question of law is to be decided is similar to those in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992 CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj decided on 27th March, 1995 reported at (1995) 128 CTR (Raj) 325. The question referred for the opinion of the High Court is identical with the question which was referred in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992. While answering the reference in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992 [CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanaraj (supra)], this Court held as under :'The Tribunal was justified in directing the amount of unpaid sales-tax liabilit...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Liberty Pesticides and Fertilizers (P) ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Raj)368
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J. :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the asst. yr. 1986-87, referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the outstanding statutory liabilities are not disallowable under s. 43B of the Act if the same is paid within the time allowed in the respective statute ?'2. The material facts, on the basis of which the above question of law is to be decided is similar to those in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992 CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj decided on 27th March, 1995 [reported in (1995) 128 CTR (Raj) 325]. The question referred for the opinion of the High Court is identical with the question which was referred in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992. While answering the reference in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992 CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj (supra) this Court held as under :'The Tribunal was justified in directing that the amount of u...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jyoti Industries.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Raj)125
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J. :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the asst. yr. 1986-87 referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the Act for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the unpaid sales-tax liability, if paid within the time allowed under respective Acts although after the relevant previous year of assessee, should not be disallowed by virtue of s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The material facts on the basis of which the above question of law is to be decided are similar to those in DB IT Ref. No. 9/92, CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj decided on 27th March, 1995 [reported at (1995) 128 CTR (Raj) 325]. The question referred for the opinion of the High Court is identical with the question which were referred in DB IT Ref. No. 9/92. While answering the reference in DB IT Ref. No. 9/92 CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj (supra) this Court held that :'The Tribunal was justified in directi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Arawali Minerals and Chemicals Industri ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Raj)124
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J. :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the asst. yr. 1986-87 referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the Act for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the unpaid sales-tax liability, if paid within the time allowed under Sales-tax Act should not to be disallowed by virtue of s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The material facts on the basis of which the above question of law is to be decided are similar to those in DB IT Ref. No. 9/92, CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj decided on 27th March, 1995 [reported at (1995) 128 CTR (Raj) 325]. The question referred for the opinion of the High Court is identical with the question which were referred in DB IT Ref. No. 9/92. While answering the reference in DB IT Ref. No. 9/92 CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj (supra) this Court held that :'The Tribunal was justified in directing that the amount of unpaid sales-tax liabilities to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »