Rajasthan Court January 1996 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. Jaideo JaIn and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR302(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J.1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue has prayed that the Tribunal may be directed to submit the statement of the case and refer the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in annulling the assessment made under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 on October 9, 1973, have not been concluded to a logical end and, therefore, the fresh notice under Section 148 was invalid ?' 2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, before which the application under Section 256(1) of the Act was made by the Revenue for referring the above two questions of law for the opinion of the High Court, dismiss...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raj Kumar Bafna
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR822(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Revenue, by this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has prayed that the Tribunal may be directed to state the case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally right in upholding the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and thereby holding that the reopening of assessment was bad in law ?'2. The Tribunal refused to refer the case on the ground that it was merely a change of opinion by the successor-officer. The Assessing Officer allowed 30 per cent. investment allowance under Section 30 of the Act to the assessde for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88. The successor-Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on the ground that once the net profit rate has been applied, there was no justification in allowing the deduction for interest ; secondly, the rate of depreciation on rig ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trinity Hospital
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Raj)328; [1997]225ITR178(Raj); 1996WLC(Raj)UC196; 1996(1)WLN23
B.R. Arora, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, by its order dated September 23, 1991, for the assessment year1986-87, 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 that investment allowance may be allowed on X-ray machines, ultrasound scanner, foetal monitor and air-conditioning equipment as provided under Section 32A(2)(b)(ii) read with Section 32A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, these machines and equipments can legally be called machinery or plant installed in a small-scale industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of manufacture or production of any article or thing as provided in Section 32A(2)(b)(ii) read with Section 32A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ' 2. The assessee, Trinity Hospital, Jodhpur, is a registered firm and is runni...
Lalchand Kothari Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR142(Raj); 1996(3)WLC373; 1996(1)WLN36
B.R. Arora, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the assessee, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court with respect to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1977-78 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that there could not be a partial partition both with regard to an asset of the Hindu undivided family and its members and sustaining the inclusion of the jewellery of the value of Rs. 89,892 for the assessment year 1975-76 and Rs. 94,000 for the assessment year 1977-78 in the net wealth of the assessee ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Hindu undivided family consisting of the coparceners Sarvashri Lalchand -- karta of the Hindu undivided family -- and his two sons, Jawahar Lal and Lalit Kumar. On Kartik Wadi 3, Samvat year 2031, a partial partition of the asset relating to jewellery held by the Hindu undivided family ...
Saraf Textile Workers Union Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR445]; (1996)IILLJ841Raj
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. The petitioner which is a registered trade union, espousing the cause of the aggrieved workman, has moved to this Court by the instant writ petition through its General Secretary Shri Madan Singh, contending inter-alia that the petitioner is a union of the workmen employed in the industrial establishment of M/s Saraf Textile Industries Ltd., Sanganer, Jaipur - respondent No. 2, which is affiliated to the Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra, Jaipur. A charter of demands dated July 28, 1988 on behalf of its workmen was submitted to the Management of respondent No.2 vide Annex-1. The demands were to the following effect:1. The services of all the workmen should be regularised and the workmen who have been removed from service should be taken back to duty. 2. The increase of wage @ 35% be given to the piece rated workmen. 3. 25% increase be given in wage to those workmen who are employed at the fixed rate. 4. Dearness Allowance @ Re. 1.50 per point be given to the workmen as...
Smt. Swaran Devi Vs. Kailash Chandra JaIn and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN186
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. The plaintiff-non-petitioners filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner on several grounds inter alia on the ground that the petitioner committed default in the payment of rent. Notice of suit was served on the petitioner. He put his appearance on 17.12.1994. On his request the case was adjourned to 7.3.1995. On 7.3.1995, the petitioner filed an application mentioning therein that he has already deposited rent upto Dec, 1994, tinder Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the 'Act'), He wants to deposit the rent for the months of January and February, 1995. He may be. permitted to deposit the rent in the Court.2. The trial Court vide its order dated 7.5.1993, rejected the said application of the defendant-petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal. The learned Addl. District Judge No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his order dated 24.4.1995, rejected the said appeal. Under such circumstances...
Pana Chand JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Raj231; 1996(2)WLC409; 1996(1)WLN112
ORDER1. The petitioner is a retired Judge of this High Court. He was elevated to the Bench from bar by warrant issued by the President on July 11,1985. When he retired as Judge of this High Court on attaining the age of 62 years on March 18, 1989, he received an amount of commuted pension of Rs. 72,056/-. On the commuted value of pension equal to Rs. 7875.00 per annum, the petitioner's pension has been fixed at Rs. 15,750/-per annum (Rs. 1312.00 per month). The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 14 of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed to fix equal amount of pension to all the retiring Judges on the basis of principle of one rank one pension and in the alternative, it has been prayed that a minimum pension of the amount of Rs. 15,750.00 per annum (Rs. 1312.00 per month) fixed is grossly inadequate and it may be held to be illusive and violative of Articl...
Rajendra Pal Vs. Anjali Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1433; 1996(2)WLC344; 1996(1)WLN183
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against order dated 24-2-1995 passed by the learned Judge. Family Court, Kota, whereby he allowed application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. filed by the non-petitioners, directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- per month each to his wife Smt. Anjali Singh and to his minor daughter Kumari Ashima as maintenance allowance from the date of filing their application, to deposit arrears of maintenance allowance within a period of two months and also to pay Rs. 200/- as costs.2. The petitioner was married to Smt. Anjali Singh on 26-8-1990 and on 21-9-91 Kumari Aashima (non-petitioner No. 2) was born out of their wedlock. On 9-11-1992, the non-petitioners filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Kota with the averments that the petitioner has neglected and refused to maintain them since 4-10-1992 when he left them at Kota. It was further averred that they did not have sufficient means to mainta...
Kamal Kishore Vyas and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC129; 1996(1)WLN1
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. This is a joint writ petition filed by 13 petitioners seeking the relief that the respondents may be directed to grant regular grade-increments to them with effect from the date of their initial appointment in service alongwith other admissible allowances and not from the date from which they have been regularised in service as has been done by the respondents.2. Petitioners Rakesh Bhandari, Dinesh Bafna, Deepak Mohnot, Surendra Raj Mohnot and Manmohan Lalas were given appointment by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court purely on urgent/ad hoc/temporary basis by orders dated 21.01.86, 20.02.86 and 26.06.86 for a period of six months in the first instance. Later on, they were transferred on their request to the office of the Government Advocate, however, they remained ad hoc employees in the office of the Government Advocate till they were regularised. Petitioner K.K. Vyas was appointed by the Special Judge, Sati Niwaran Court, Jaipur by order dated 20.01.87 upto 30.1...
indu Engineering and Textiles Ltd. Vs. Deep Special Steels Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1996
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas133(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. This petition has been filed for winding up of Deep Special Steels Ltd. under Section 439 read with Sections 438 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, on the ground that the said company has neglected to make the payment of a sum of Rs. 2,54,061.60 in respect of Bill No. GC 192, dated October 29, 1992 and Bill No. GC 196, dated October 20, 1992. Besides this interest was also claimed. A notice which was sent on November 16, 1994, by registered post has also been submitted along with other correspondence.2. The respondents have come with the plea that the order was for 66cast iron moulds at the rate as specifically mentioned in the purchaseorder dated October 20, 1992, and the petitioner-company has suppliedthe material which was not of specification. The inspection which wasrequired under the terms of the order was also not carried on. Insteadof cast iron moulds rough-casting unmachined moulds were supplied 44in quantity against the order of 66. The machining was not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »