Rajasthan Court February 2000 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dhanraj Mundra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: [2002]257ITR785(Raj)
1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), whereby the Commissioner of Income-tax, Udaipur, has sought for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question of law to this court for determination :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no interest can be charged under Section 217(1) or Section 217(1A) as the assessee has filed the estimates and has paid tax accordingly, by ignoring the fact that the assessee had filed the estimate under Section 209A(1) whereas the Assessing Officer charged interest under Section 217(1A) for non-filing of estimates under Section 209A(4) of the Income-tax Act ?' The Commissioner moved an application under Section 256(1) of the Act before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for referring the above question of law to this court. The Tribunal rejected the above application vide its order dated May 4, 1998, hold...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Lal Vs. Judge, Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ659Raj
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Bhanwar Lal who was an employee of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), challenging the order Annexure-7 dated June 5, 1995 passed by the Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur approving the application moved by the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the employee) under Section 33(2)(b) whereby the order of removal from service from May 3, 1988 has been approved on the alleged charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987.2. The facts as alleged in the petition are that the petitioner was a substantive regular employee of the Corporation. A charge-sheet dated January 9, 1987 was served upon certain charges. Copy of the charge-sheet is attached as Annexure-1. On the said charge-sheet enquiry was held. The petitioner had taken certain objections in the enquiry. After completion of the enquiry the management had decided to remove the petitioner from service vide order...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sunita and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2621
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. This is a petition on behalf of the former wife of one Atul Tyagi son of Narendra Singh. The petitioner No. 1 Sunita was so married to said Atul Tyagi on 21-2-1988. The petitioner No. 2 is the second husband of the petitioner No.1 as per the statement made in the petition. Petitioner No. 3 is the father of the petitioner whereas petitioner No. 4 is the brother of petitioner No. 5 who is also close relative. The petitioner states that the petitioner No. 1 Sunita despite marriage having taken place in February, 1988 was being harassed by her in-laws. It is further stated that the earlier husband of the petitioner No. 1 Atul Tyagi was unable to perform matrimonial obligations and he was not competent to establish relationship of husband and wife despite the medical treatment. Ultimately it is stated that the petitioner No.1 was turned out of the house on 28-6-1997. It is also alleged that she was being forced to bring more money from her parents. Compelled with the c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhanraj Mundra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: [2001]116TAXMAN132(Raj)
ORDERThis is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the Commissioner, Udaipur, has sought for a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following question of law to this court for determination :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no interest can be charged under section 217(1) or section 217(1A) as the assessee has filed the estimates and has paid tax accordingly, by ignoring the fact that the assessee had filed the estimate under section 209A(1) whereas the assessing officer charged interest under section 217(1A) for non-filing of estimates under section 209A(4) of the Income Tax Act ?'The Commissioner moved an application under section 256(1) before the Tribunal for referring the above question of law to this court. The Tribunal rejected the above application vide its order dated 4-5-1998 holding that answer to the question is self-evident and, the...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Surajmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000WLC(Raj)UC322; 2000(2)WLN720
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. This appeal arises out of a decision of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh dated 29.9.1989 passed in Criminal Case No. 91/84.2. The learned trial court has acquitted the accused by considering that sanction, which has been granted to prosecute the accused, is not a conscious decision. The sanction does not show any application of mind by the Authority granting sanction. The trial court has found that such grant of sanction was not in accordance with the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act and therefore, acquitted the accused.3. Learned counsel for the State has drawn attention of the Court towards Ex. P/6, which is printed form filled in by some one other than the Chief Medical & Health Officer.4. The Court has examined Ex. P/6 and come to the conclusion that signatory of Ex. P/6 is not the Chief Medical & Health Officer. In this background, finding of the trial court does not appear to be vitiated on any count. In this view of the matter, no inte...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Shankar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC711; 2000(3)WLN290
J.C. Verma, J.1. Agricultural land comprising of Khasra Nos. 156, 157, 158, 163, 164, 165, 166 and Well No. 162 was maufi land of Thakur Shri Gopal through Pujari Shri Hari Vallabh Das. The Maufi land was resumed under the Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act and the land had vested in the State. Under the Act, Mafidars were to set compensation of the resumed land as per the principles laid down in the Act and the Rules itself.2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were the purchasers of the resumed land from Smt. Bhuri who according to the petitioners was tenant of the land. It is stated that deity - respondent No. 4 was land holder and disputed land was not in KhudKast of the land holder. Smt. Bhuri a recorded tenant of land holder is said to have sold her Khatedari tenant rights to the petitioners vide registered sale-deed in July, 1968. Mutation was also done in favour of the petitioner Gaurishankar on 28.2.1969 and thereafter, the petitioner was recorded as Khatedar te...
Tag this Judgment!Nagar Palika Mandal, Rajsamand Vs. J.K. Industries Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj300; 2000(3)WLC134
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. These four appeals raise identical question of law of substantial nature as framed by this Court while admitting the appeals. They are, therefore, decided by this common judgment. The question of law substantial in nature involved in the appeals was framed by this Court which is as under:--'Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 143 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959?'2. Brief facts which are not disputed are necessary for adjudication of the question of law framed.The plaintiff in all suits J. K. Industries Ltd. filed the suits on the allegation that on certain items, the Company was granted exemption from octroi by the State Govt. and a certificate to that effect was issued by the competent authority nominated in that behalf. However, in spite of such certificate, certain sum of money (which vary according to each suit) were wrongly paid as octroi and, therefore, suits were filed praying recovery or refund of the amount wrongly recovered...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali (No. 1)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: [2002]256ITR355(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. No one appears on behalf of the respondents in spite of service. 3. This application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, was filed. 4. By this application the applicant has requested the Tribunal to refer the following question ; 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on the vehicles which were not registered in the name of the assessee-firm ?' 5. The order dated January 12, 1997, passed in I. T. A. No. 78/JP of 1993 for the assessment year 1988-89. The Tribunal has rejected the application under Section 256(1) for making reference of the aforesaid question to this court for its opinion. No dispute on the facts in the context of the controversy has been raised th...
Tag this Judgment!Anu Products Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1551; 2000WLC(Raj)UC327; 2000(2)WLN480
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. in which it has been prayed that the complaint filed against the petitioners before Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu District Nagaur be quashed.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor.3. Shiv Prasad Goyal was appointed as a Inspector under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and Ladnu falls with in his jurisdiction. It is alleged that on 22-7-1994. M/s. Kisan Beej Bhandar was checked and Bheru Singh, is proprietor, was found present. He was selling dimethoate 30% E.C. (an insecticide) and had stored the same in the shop. The sample was taken and was sealed before the witnesses. One of the samples was sent to the Insecticide Laboratory which was found to be misbranded vide report dated 19-9-1994 which is on record. A notice along with report was sent to M/s. Kisan Beej Bhandar which informed that the distributors were M/s. Yadav Beej Bhandar, Sujangarh and Bharat Beej Bhandar, Sik...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Cit Vs. Ajay Vijay Traders
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Raj)189; 2001(4)WLC339
By the Court The appellant Assistant Commissioner, Circle, Jodhpur, has filed this income-tax appeal against the order dated 9-11-1998, received on 9-12-1998, passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur, in I.T.A. No. 586/Jp/of 1992 for the assessment year 1997-98.This appeal was initially placed for admission before the Division Bench consisting of Honble Shri Shivraj Patil (the then Honble Chief Justice) and Honble Justice Bhagwati Prasad. After hearing the learned counsel Shri Sandeep Bhandawat for the appellant, this appeal was dismissed by brief reasoned order because according to their Lordships no substantial question of law was arising in appeal for consideration and on the admitted facts the Tribunal did not find any merit in the appeal filed by the revenue with the observation that though the learned Tribunal has not specifically referred to proviso to section 161(1A), but it applied the law correctly to the admitted facts of the case and decided the matter.2. The aforesaid order passed b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »