Rajasthan Court January 2000 Judgments
Smt. Kamla Devisethia Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: (2000)67TTJ(NULL)219
ORDERB.M. Kothari, A.M.This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 5-3-1993 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1991-92.The assessee has raised as many as 4 grounds but the main ground relates to the confirmation of addition of Rs. 40,152 being unexplained capital, claimed to be belonging to the assessee.2. Shri J.K. Ranka, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the assessee explained that the assessee had filed her first return of income for assessment year 1990-91. She derives income from stitching of clothes, weaving and hand art work. The assessing officer has levied tax on opening capital shown by the assessee in the balance sheet. The capital as at the end of the year as per balance sheet furnished by the assessee was Rs. 60,152. The balance sheet as on 31-3-1990 submitted along with return of income for assessment year 1990-91 shows that there was a closing capital of Rs. 39,805. A sum of Rs. 22,147 represent profit derived durin...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Cham Marine Products (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: [2000]77ITD13(Jodh)
ORDERBehari Lal, A.M.The above appeals have been filed by the department against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). ITA No. 1318/Ahd/1991, for the assessment year 1983-84 and ITA No. 1319/Ahd/1991, for the assessment year 1984-85, have been filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Rajkot dated 21-12-1990 whereas ITA No. 1990/Ahd/1993, for the assessment year 1985-86 and ITA No. 1959/Ahd/93, for the assessment year 1986-87, have been filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Rajkot dated 26-3-1993. As there are similar issues involved in the above appeals, therefore, one consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience.2. The various grounds of appeal in the above cases are as follows'(i) The learned Commissioner(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that invoking of provision of section 147(b) in the assessees case is not justifiable.(ii) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in directing to gr...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN563
ORDERMathur, J.(1). By this group of writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Sec. 19 (g), 19 (gg) and Proviso (ii) of Section 19 of he Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1999. All the writ petitions are disposed of by common judgment. (2). On 17.1.2000, one of the petitions came up for admission and a notice was given to the learned Advocate General. The case was posted for final hearing on 27.1.2000, Mr. Mahesh Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as the State has not filed reply, the petitioner is entitled to interim relief i.e. stay of offending provisions providing disqualification to contest election. Mr. Sagar Mal Mehta, learned Advocate General, submits that he is prepared to argue the petition finally without filing the reply. In view of this, we have taken up the group of writ petitions for final hearing at admission stage. (3). The Rajasthan Panc...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab Travel Co., Ahmedabad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj294
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. The Instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the Notification/Office order dated 31-3-97/29-1-99 issued by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3, which provides for charging the road tax from the motor vehicles having authorisation under the Motor Vehicles (All India Permit for Tourist Transport Operators) Rules, 1993 (for short, 'the Rules, 1993') and restrain them to charge the road tax under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act, 1951') and the Rules framed thereunder.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Act, 1951 provides for imposition of road tax on the vehicles used or kept for use in the State of Rajasthan. Section 4 of the said Act is a charging section and provides for imposition of road tax on the vehicles at such rate, not exceeding that specified in the Schedule, as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the official gazette. Amount of tax is fixed and prescribed under t...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Ram Etc. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj416; 2000(4)WLC412
ORDER1. By this group of writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 19(g), 19(gg) and Proviso (ii) of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1999, All the writ petitions are disposed of by common judgment. 2. On 17-1-2000, one of the petitions came up for admission and a notice was given to the learned Advocate General. The case was posted for final hearing on 27-1-2000. Mr. Mahesh Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as the State has not filed reply, the petitioner is entitled to interim relief i.e. stay of offending provisions providing disqualification to contest election. Mr. Sagar Mal Mehta, learned Advocate General, submits that he is prepared to argue the petition finally without filing the reply. In view of this, we have taken up the group of writ petitions for final hearing at admission stage. 3. The Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad Vs. Hafiz Iron Works
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2000
Reported in: [2000]119STC336(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. This revision is directed against the judgment dated September 17, 1997 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby the Rajasthan Tax Board while upholding the judgment dated June 22, 1995 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.3. The case of the Revenue is that, the assessing officer, a member of the Flying Squad, checked the vehicle No, HR-11/1099 on October 22, 1993 near Sardarsahar and found that the goods were accompanied with the requisite documents containing builty, invoices and requisite particulars of the goods. The goods were also accompanied with the declaration form No. S.T. 18A.4. However, the assessing officer was of the view that since the goods were covered by single form No. S.T. 18A and for each invoice separate declaration in form No. S.T. 18A was not furnished and was not accompanying the goods therefore, provisions of Section 22A(3) of the Rajas...
Tag this Judgment!Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj215; 2000(4)WLC739
V.S. Kokje, J.1. The petitioners Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh and Akhil Bhartiya Shri Jain Ratna Yuvak Sangh had filed this petition in public interest against the State of Rajasthan. The Director General of Police (Crime), Jaipur. The Collector, Nagaur. The Station House Officer, Police Station Merta City, Gram Sevak, Gram Panchayat Anandpur Kalu. Panchayat Samiti Jaitaran, District Pali and the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Jodhpur complaining about illegal transportation of Bovine animals in violation of the Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 and the Rules framed thereunder, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 4th January, 2000 a notice was directed to be issued to the respondents as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of at the stage of admission. An interim stay order as prayed was also granted subject to the condition that the Cows will be maintained at the cost of th...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Derby Textiles Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2000
Reported in: [2002]126STC543(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These two revisions raise a common question of law and, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order.2. Both these revisions relate to assessment year 1988-89. S.B. Sales Tax Revision No. 1051 of 1999 relates to assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act and S.B. Sales Tax Revision No. 1050 of 1999 pertains to assessment under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.3. The order under challenge has been passed in pursuance of the reassessment proceedings initiated on March 15, 1995 by issuing a notice under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, which was served on the assessee-respondent on March 30, 1995. By amendment in Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act vide Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1991, the period within which the assessing officer could exercise his jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings in respect of any assessment year has been restricted to five years from last date of relevant assessment year. As stated ...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Shrinath Emporium
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2000
Reported in: [2001]123STC593(Raj); 2001(4)WLC658
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The short issue has been raised in this petition. The period for which the issue related ended on 31st March, 1991. After regular assessment was framed, notices were issued under Section 12 on April 18, 1996 for reopening the assessment for that period and final order of reassessment, was made on it. In this revision we are not concerned with the merit of the reassessment order. Question is whether the assessing officer had jurisdiction under Section 12 to issue notice on April 18, 1996. The question arises as a result of amendment effected in Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1991. In Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 the word 'five' has been substituted for word 'eight'. In other words before its assessment.2. Relevant part of Sub-section (2) of Section 12 read prior to amendment with effect from April 1, 1991 as under :'(2) No notice under Sub-section (1) shall be issued in ...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-evasion Ii Vs. Rajendra Kumar ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-2000
Reported in: [2000]120STC227(Raj); 2001(4)WLC678
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision is filed by revenue against the order of Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, dated October 5, 1998 affirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Taxation Department, Jodhpur, dated July 25, 1991 in appeal filed by respondent-dealer Rajendra Kumar Ashok Kumar by which levy of declaration (sic) under Section 22A(7) against the transporter Gills Sindhu Haryana Transport Company levied by order dated February 28, 1990 has been set aside.2. The transport vehicle No. SNQ 3125 was checked at the check-post near octroi post, Banad, Jodhpur, while coming from Delhi. Amongst other goods, the truck was carrying 500 kg. cashewnuts packed in 11 packets. On being asked about the bill and the accompanied documents, the Manager, Gills Sindhu Haryana Transport admitted that the goods are being carried in the vehicle with an intention to evade payment of tax and the bill and bilty accompanying the goods do not relate to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »