Rajasthan Court February 2000 Judgments
Shivam Synthetics (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: (2002)76TTJ(NULL)164
ORDERBy the BenchThe assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal :1. 'The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 69,000 being the amount of investment by Smt. Manju Devi Ajmera, as unexplained cash credit. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, he ought to have deleted the addition made by the Assistant Commissioner.2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 49,000 being the amount of investment by Shri Prahlad Rai Ajmera, as unexplained cash credit. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, he ought to have deleted the addition made by the Assistant Commissioner.'2. Shri Mahendra Gargieya, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the assessee. He submitted that both the persons, namely, Smt. Manju Devi Ajmera and Shri Prahlad Rai Ajmera are existing income-tax assessees. Their statements were recorded by the assessing officer. Both of them have confir...
Tag this Judgment!Maruti Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2000
Reported in: (2000)159CTR(Raj)142
S. Chauhan, J.The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 22-12-1999 (Annexure 2), impounding the books of accounts and other documents; for quashing the summons under section 131, dated 21-12-1999 (Annexure 1); and for issuing directions to the respondents to release the entire books of accounts and other documents impounded by them.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that a survey was conducted under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereianfter referred to as 'the Act'), at the business premises of the petitioner on 21-12-1999, and a list of documents as prepared. On the same date, i.e., on 21-12-1999, summons under section 1 of the Act was issued to the director of the petitioner-company to produce the books of accounts and other documents for verification of the entries on 22-12-1999. In pursuance of the summons issued under section 131(1) of the Act, the director of the petitioner-company appeared along with the b...
Tag this Judgment!Maruti Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR348(Raj); 2000(2)WLC500
B.S. Chauhan J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated December 22, 1999 (annexure-2), impounding the books of account and other documents : for quashing the summons under Section 131 dated December 21, 1999 (annexure 1); and for issuing directions to the respondents to release the entire books of account and other documents impounded by them.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that a survey was conducted under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), at the business premises of the petitioner on December 21, 1999, and a list of documents was prepared. On the same date, i.e., on December 21, 1999, summons under Section 131 of the Act was issued to the director of the petitioner-company to produce the books of account and other documents for verification of the entries on December 22, 1999. In pursuance of the summons issued under Section 131(1) of the Act, the director of the petitioner-company ap...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Laxmanbhai J. Patel
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2000
Reported in: [2000]77ITD166(Jodh)
ORDERBehri Lal, A.M.This appeal has been filed by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Rajkot, dated 25-9-1990, for the assessment year 1987-88. The only ground of appeal taken up by the department reads as follows :'The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,31,165 made by the assessing officer on account of undisclosed sources.'2. The assessee is an individual. He is having an industrial (proprietary) unit by the name 'Saurashtra Industries' and is manufacturing brass and bush from gun metal. He is also a partner in M/s. Saurashtra Engineers with 10 per cent share. Saurashtra Engineers are manufacturing engineering goods and engine parts.3. There was a search at Ahmedabad and Bhavnagar on some party known to the assessee. Thus, there was a consequential action, under section 132 of the Act, at the residential as well as business premises of the assessee on 17-7-1987. Some cash and gold ornaments were s...
Tag this Judgment!Birla Cement Works and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj251; 2001(4)WLC500
1. This appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge dated 28-1-2000 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 180/2000. 2. The petitioners carry on the business of manufacturing and selling of cement and for the purpose of their business they have also been granted mining lease for lime stone in respect of the land situated in village Bharda Jai, Surjna, Nagri in tehsil Chittorgarh. According to the petitioners they have installed crusher in the mining area itself for crushing lime stone excavated from the mines and there is public road in the mining area of the petitioners, which is in the exclusive possession and control of the petitioners. For the purpose of carrying lime stone from mines to the crusher within that area they have acquired heavy earth moving equipments known as Dumpers. The total number of such machines acquired from time to time is 27. In the petition, out of which this appeal arises, demand notices Annexure 4/1 to 4/27, raised under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles T...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Dalip Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC150; 2000(2)WLN345
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This State appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10th September, 1980, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, in Sessions Case No. 42/1979, acquitting the accused respondents Dalip Singh Beniwal, Dalip Ram Kaler and Santosh Kumar Batad of the offence under Section 302, 325 read with 34 IPC.2. The prosecution case as set out during the trial is that the deceased Jagdev Singh and injured P.W. 6 Jagtar Singh and all the three accused respondents were the students of the ninth Semester of Medical College, Bikaner. All of them lived in the Tagore Hostel of the College except second respondent Dalip Ram Kaler, who was day scholar but he also used to visit and sometimes stay in the said hostel. P.W. 4 Balveer Singh was student of fifth Semester residing in another hostel. P.W. 5 Balvinder Singh, a resident student lived in Room No. 44 of the Tagore Hostel. About 6-7 months prior to the date of incident, there was an election of the post of General Secretary o...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Gajendra Singh and Others Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajme ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC689; 2000(3)WLN304
ORDERVerma, J.(1). The petitioner No.1 Raj Gajendra Singh is the husband of thepetitioner No.2 and father of petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 and they are challenging the ordersdated 9.3.1977 (Annexure-G), 30.9.1977 (Annexure-H), 19.11.1985 (Annexure-P) and18.1.1986 (Annexure-Q) with the further submission that the land recorded in the nameof deceased Chandra Sen had devolved on the petitioner Nos. 1,3,4 and 5 and were,therefore, entitled to retain the area equal to 30 standard acres as separate units underthe Rajasthan Imposition of Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 and the rules framedthereunder.(2). Proceedings under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the rules were initiated against Raj Gajendra Singh in the year 1971 by the SDO, Kota. The SDO, Kola after hearing the petitioner had decided that in addition to Raj Gajendra Singh, his three younger brothers Kishan Singh, Chanchal Singh and Laxman Singh were to be considered as separate units for the purpose of ceiling and allowed 30 ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Hanuman Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC436; 2000(3)WLN557
ORDERVerma J.(1). The State has come up in this writ petition challenging the orders passed by the Board of Revenue dated 21.11.1985 (Annexure-3) with the prayer that the judgment passed by the Additional Collector, Ajmer dated 6.2.1984 (Annexure-2) be ordered to be maintained.(2). The SDO Kekri initiated ceiling proceedings under Chapter III of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter called as the old law) against the respondent No.1 Hanuman Singh and the declared certain area to be surplus vide its order dated 27.3.1971. Aggrieved against this order the respondent No.1 had filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was decided in favour of the respondent No.1, but lateron on 29.9.1978 in exercise of the powers conferred u/Sec. 15(2) of the New Act, the State Govt. ordered reopening of the case of the respondent and directed the Additional Collector, Ajmer for taking necessary action and in pursuance of the order passed by the State Government the land matter of the r...
Tag this Judgment!Manhish Singhvi Vs. J.N.V. University, Jodhpur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj383; 2000(2)WLC730
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner had joined the LL.M. Course in 1993 and passed his 1st year LL.M. Examination, 1994, wherein, he had secured 301 out of 500 total marks and stood II in the merit list next to Shri Ashwani Daiya -- respondent No. 3, who secured 316 out of total 500 marks and stood at number 1 in the merit list of LL.M. Part 1st examination.2. Both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 got admission in LL.M. IInd year examination. 1994. Last date for filling up the examination form of LL.M. Part II was 27-1-1995. The respondent No. 3 with other students of LL.M. Part II filled up the form before the expiry of last date i.e. 27-1-1995. However, the petitioner did not fill up the form before expiry of last date of 27-1 -1995. Somewhere in March, 1995, all of sudden he woke up from slumber and made an application requesting the respondent University to permit him to fill up the form late after condoning the delay. However, the University did not reply to the same ...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Mansingh Vs. Judge, Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ1241Raj; 2000(4)WLC184; 2000(2)WLN704
J.C. Verma, J.1. The short point involved in the present case is whether in the cases where approval as required under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, such approval having not been granted by the appropriate Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court to the proposed punishment of removal of workman by the employer and such order of the Labour Court if so challenged in the High Court and stay is granted, but admittedly, workman concerned remains out of employment, despite the fact that the application for removing him from service having not been approved by the Labour Court, in such situation whether the employer is liable to pay to the non-petitioner workman in the terms as provided under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. In the present case, the dismissal order was passed by the petitioner on July 3, 1992 vide Annexure-2 and the application was moved to the Industrial Tribunal for approving the same as was required under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. After going th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »