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. Madan and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Raj)459
B. 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 legally justified in cancelling the order of CIT passed under s. 263 and in holding that the unpaid Sales-tax liability, if paid within time allowed under the Sales-tax Act, should not be disallowed by virtue of 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. Achal Dass 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 of 1992. While answering the reference in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992 this Court held that :'The Tribunal was justified in directing that the amount of ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chandra Singh and Sons.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Raj)547
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 legally justified in holding that the outstanding sales-tax amounting to Rs. 52,268 is not disallowable under s. 43B of the Act as the same was paid before the due date of return filing whereas the amendment to that effect came into force w.e.f. 1st April, 1988 only?'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. 9/92, 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 this Court held that :'The Tribunal was justified in directin...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lake City Wines.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Raj)478
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 legally justified in holding that the unpaid 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 Law ?'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 were referred in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992. While answering the reference in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992 this Court held that : 'The Tribunal was justified in directing that the amount of unpaid Sales-tax liabilities to the last date of pre...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Usha Prestressed and Allied Industries.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Raj)551
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 time allowed under Sales-tax Act should not be disallowed under s. 43B of IT Act, 1961, even if it is actually paid after the end of assessees previous year ?'2. The material facts on the basis of which the above questions of law are 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 t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bombay Motors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Raj)38
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 directing that the amount of Rs. 1,16,882 being the unpaid sales-tax liability as on 30th June, 1986, i.e., the last day of previous year should not be disallowed under s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961, as the same amount was paid within the time allowed under the relevant Sales-tax Law ?2. Whether the amended provisions of s. 43B introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 1988 are retrospective and are applicable to assessment year under consideration, i.e., the asst. yr. 1987-88 ?'2. The material facts on the basis of which the above questions of law are 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 questions referred for the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Synthetic Stones
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Raj)591
ORDERB.R. Arora, JThe Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the revenue, has referred the following questions of law, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, for the opinion of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Members of the Tribunal were legally justified in upholding the order of Commissioner (Appeals), who held that:(a)cash compensatory support receipt is not liable to tax being capital receipt;(b)subsidy is a capital receipt and it should be taken as a capital employed for the purpose of calculating deduction under section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The material facts, on the basis of which question No, (a) 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. (a) is identical with the question which was for decision in D.B. IT Ref. No. 7 of 1990. For the same reasons given in CIT v. Saboo Emery Stones's case (supra), this question is ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Emery Stones Manufacturing Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Raj)593
ORDERB.R. Arora, J.The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the revenue, has referred the following question of law, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in allowing assessee's claim that cash compensatory support for export is a capital receipt not liable to tax under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'2. The material facts, on the basis of which question 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 is identical with the question which was for decision in D.B. IT Ref. No. 7 of 1990. For the same reasons given in CIT v. Saboo Emery Stones's case (supra), this question is decided in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and it is held that the cash compensatory support (by whatever name it may be called) is liable to tax under the provision...
Ram Pyari and ors. Vs. Bharat Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: 2(1996)ACC162; 1996(2)WLC718
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This appeal filed Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been preferred against the award dated 27.1.87 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (in short the 'Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants was dismissed on the ground that they had failed to prove that the accident in question wherein Kana died was caused by Truck No. RRR-9327.2. Stated in succinct, the relevant facts are that on the night intervening 6th and 7th November, 1981 deceased Kana was travelling from Tonk and going to Village Ghas in a camel cart alongwith AW 2 Mohar Pal and AW 3 Jaipal. At about 4.00 a.m., when they reached ahead of Rustumganj, Truck No. RRR-9327, which was coming on a very high speed from Uniyara side and going towards Tonk hit their camel cart with the result that Kana fell down, sustained multiple severe injuries and died instantaneously. It is alleged that at the time of the accident the camel cart was going on its left si...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.A. Presstressed Works
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR226(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in the case of the assessee, M. A. Presstressed Works, Mandore Mandi, Jodhpur, for the assessment year 1976-77, referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court ;' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct and true interpretation of Section 275, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in confirming the view of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the limitation period of two years was to be taken from the end of the financial year in which the assessment proceedings were completed and not six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the registration matter was received by the Commissioner ?'2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to state in brief the events which culminated in the imposition of the penalty and the reference made by the Tribunal. M. A. Presstressed Works, Mandore Mandi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajendra Textiles
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1995
Reported in: [1997]225ITR516(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87, 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 Act :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that while calculating the amount of deduction under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, depreciation and investment allowance is required to the ignored ?'2. The identical question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this court in D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1991, CIT v. Vishnu Oil and Dal Mills and the Division Bench of this court answered the question as follows (at page 74) :' If we read Section 80HH with Section 80AB of the Act then it is very much clear that for the purpose of determination of the relief under Section 80HH of the Act, the gross total income of the assessee has to be worke...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »