Rajasthan Court November 1995 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. Mehta Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Raj)5
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the asst. yr. 1985-86, 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 circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the unpaid sales-tax liability, if paid within the stipulated time provided in the Sales-tax Act, is not disallowable under s. 43B of the IT Act ?'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 questions which were 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 unpaid sales-tax...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Brijlal Pawan Kumar.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Raj)370
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 legally justified in confirming the order of learned CIT(A) and thereby holding that the unpaid sales-tax liability is not disallowable under s. 43B of the IT Act, if the same is paid within the prescribed time limit under the Sales-tax Act ?'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 Achaldass Dhanraj (supra) this Court held as under :'The Tribunal ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Soni Traders.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Raj)309
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 and thus cancelling the order passed under s. 263 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 Dhanraj (supra), this Court held as under :'The Tribunal was justified i...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dunichand Kishan Lal.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Raj)199
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 Act for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in holding that the outstanding sales-tax liability is not disallowable under s. 43B of the IT Act if the same is paid within the time allowed under Sales-tax Act?'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 questions 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 t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R. K. Enterprises.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Raj)54
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 legally justified in directing to allow Rs. 2,84,329 out of total unpaid sales-tax liability of Rs. 4,82,220 as the same stands paid prior to the filing of return of income, whereas such amended provisions of s. 43B are only applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 1988 ?'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. 9/92 CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj (supra) this Court held as und...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat Motors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Raj)189
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 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 that :'The Tribunal was justified in directing that the amount of unpaid sales-tax liabilities to the last ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hiralal Murlidhar and Sons.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Raj)289
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 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 outstanding sales-tax liability is not disallowable under s. 43B of the Act if the same is paid within the time allowed under Sales-tax Act ?'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 questions 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 the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jasraj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Raj)441
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the asst. yr. 1985-86 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 unpaid sales-tax of Rs. 56,753 and mandi tax of Rs. 14,650 are not disallowable under s. 43B of the Act if the same are paid within the prescribed time in respective laws ?'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 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 questions which were 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 directi...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Radio Centre.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Raj)187
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 legally justified in confirming the order of the learned CIT(A) and thereby holding that unpaid sales-tax is not disallowable under s. 43B of the Act if paid within the time allowed under the Sales-tax Act and/or if the same is paid within the time allowed to file the return of income stipulated under s. 139(1) in view of the amendment to s. 43B of the Act ?'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 ans...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mukund Lal Motilal.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Raj)50
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J. :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1987-88 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 legally justified in holding that the unpaid sales-tax liability is not disallowable if the same is paid within the time allowed under the Sales-tax Act ?'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 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 Dhanraj (supra) this Court held as under :'The Tribunal was justified in directing that the amount of unpaid Sales-tax liabiliti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »