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. Saboo Emery Stones
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR295(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate 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, 1961, for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's claim that cash compensatory support for exports is a capital receipt not liable to tax under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The controversy in the present case is : whether the cash compensatory receipt is taxable as a revenue receipt or not? Section 28 of the Act deals with the profits and gains from business or profession. An amendment was made by the Finance Act of 1990, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1962, regarding taxability of the incentive received by the exporters and new Clauses (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) have been inserted in Section 28 of the Act, by which a provision has been made that p...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. H.H. Maharaja Gaj Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1995
Reported in: [1996]218ITR133(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following question of law under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the reopening of the assessment was illegal, invalid and, consequently, the cancellation of the reassessment ?'2. The assessee, H.H. Maharaja Gaj Singh, is the ex-Ruler of the erstwhile Jodhpur State. He was assessed under the Gift-tax Act for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73. According to the Gift-tax Officer, certain gifts had escaped assessment and, therefore, he, after issuance of the notices to the assessee for both these assessment years, reopened the assessment and reassessed the assessee. The assessee, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals) which was partly allowed. The assessee thereafter preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. H. H. Maharaja Gaj Singh of Jodhpur.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Raj)217
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J. :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instnace of the Revenue, has referred the following question of law under s. 26(1) of the GT Act, 1958 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the reopening of the assessment was illegal, invalid and consequently the cancellation of the reassessment ?'2. The assessee H. H. Maharaja Gaj Singh is the Ex-ruler of the erstwhile Jodhpur State. He was assessed under the GT Act for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73. According to the GTO, certain gifts had escaped assessment and, therefore, he, after issuance of the notices to the assessee for both these assessment years, reopened the assessment and reassessed the assessee. The assessee thereafter filed an appeal before the CGT(A), which was partly allowed. The assessee, thereafter preferred an appeal before Tribunal. The Revenue, also, filed cross objections. The Tribunal, by its judgment dt. 16th April, 1984, allow...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. R. K. Inderjeet Singh.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Raj)350
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J. :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the asst. yr. 1975-76 has referred under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, the following question of law for the opinion of High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that provisions of s. 7(4) of WT Act, 1957 which were made effective w.e.f. 1st April, 1976, could be applied to asst. yr. 1975-76, treating the said provisions as having resprospective effect, being procedural ?'2. The assessee, Inderjeet Singh, was assessed for the asst. yr. 1975-76 by the WTO, Jodhpur, under s. 16(3) of the Act.3. The main item of wealth comprised of property known as Zalam Niwas which was assessed by the WTO at Rs. 32,44,000. The contention of the assessee before the WTO, Jodhpur was that the value of Zalam Niwas property should be taken as Rs. 5,00,000 as adopted in the asst. yr. 1971-72 as per s. 7(4) of the WT Act. This contention of the assessee was not found favour with t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Radiators.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Raj)545
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J. :The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, 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 interest under s. 214 of the IT Act was rightly directed to be allowed to the assessee from 1st April, 1980 to the date of issue of refund instead of date of regular assessment on the excess payment of advance tax ?'2. The assessee M/s Hindustan Radiators, Jodhpur, was assessed under s. 143(3) /144B of the IT Act, for the asst. yr. 1980-81 by the ITO, Central Circle, Jodhpur, for the total income of Rs. 10,78,180. The assessment was completed on 8th Sept., 1983. The assessee paid advance tax amounting to Rs. 2,13,600. The assessee challenging the assessment, preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), Jodhpur, which was allowed in part and the income assessed was reduced to Rs. 5,75,589. Due to the reduction of the ass...
Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Jaswant Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1995
Reported in: 2(1996)ACC480
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. These appeals have been preferred against the Award dated 27.5.89 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity, 'the MACT'), whereby it awarded the compensation for an amount of Rs. 90,000/- for the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant with interest @ 10% p.a. with effect from 28.4.83 i.e., date of filing claim petition. It was further directed that in case the amount of Award was not paid within two months then the claimant shall be entitled for interest @ 12% p.a.2. Since both the appeals arise out of the same Award, those are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. Briefly the relevant facts are that on 30.10.82 claimant Dinesh Kumar Singhal, who was in the improvement of M/s. Devkinandan Om Prakash, Alwar (respondent No. 2) was going in Truck No. RSA 107 from Alwar to Jodhpur for delivery of goods of the said Firm. Jaswant Singh respondent No. 1, whose name has now been deleted from the array of the respondents during p...
Subhash Bhatia Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC50; 1995(2)WLN336
Mohini Kapur, J.1. Notification for acquisition of land was issued in July, 1974. The award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is dated 27th September, 1979. By this award a sum of Rs. 6,63,399/-has been awarded as compensation to all the claiments including petitioners. A reference was made to the Civil Judge,Altar,which was rejected and the award made by the Land Acquisition officer was upheld. The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court and this was dismissed in default on 4th September, 1987. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for restoration of the appeal. This was also dismissed on 17th Feb., 1993. Thereafter, he again moved an application for restoration of the restoration application but on 6th August, 1993 he did not press the same but made a prayer that amended legal provisions of the Land Acquisition Act may be given effect to. He was directed to file a separate application and this is the application which has been moved by him. In this application ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sun Stone Engineering Industries Pvt. L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR182(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the Revenue, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow the deduction under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without deducting the carry forward losses and investment allowance ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that cash compensatory receipt for export cannot be treated as revenue receipt for taxation ?'2. The identical question came up for consideration before us in CIT v. Vishnu Oil and Dal Mills (D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1991 -- decided on November 13, 1995), in which we have answered the first question as follows (page 74) :' If we read Se...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sun Stone Engineering Industries Pvt. L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Raj)203
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 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the ITO to allow the deduction under s. 80HH of the IT Act, 1961 without deducting the carry forward losses and investment allowance ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that cash compensatory receipt for export cannot be treated as revenue receipt for taxation.'2. The identical question came up for consideration before us in CIT vs. Vishnu Oil & Dal Mills DB IT Ref. No. 1 of 1991 decided on 13th Nov., 1995 [since reported at (1996) 132 CTR (Raj) 132] in which we have answered the first question as follows :'If we read s. 80HH with s. 80AB of the Act then it is very much clear that for the purpose of determination of th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lake Palace Hotels and Motels Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: [1997]226ITR561(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This order shall dispose of all the above listed matters which have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for opinion of this courtsince the controversy involved in the above cases is as to whether a cinema building or hotel building is plant or not for the purpose of claiming depreciation.2. In the case of Lake Palace Hotels and Motels Pvt. Ltd., the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated September 2, 1988, in respect of the assessment year 1983-84 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned members of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were justified in holding that hotel is to be treated as plant and accordingly depreciation should be allowed at the rate applicable to a plant, and in further holding that the hotel being run 24 hours a day is also eligible to ext...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »