Rajasthan Court August 2000 Judgments
ito Vs. Mahesh Kumar Pandya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: (2001)73TTJ(NULL)194
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.As the above appeals involve common points, so we are disposing them of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. ITA Nos. 1022 to 1026(Jp)/of 1993 are appeals by revenue for assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87 and 1988-89 respectively and are directed against the common order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 10-2-1993, whereby he cancelled the assessment orders passed by assessing officer by involving the provisions of section 148 on account of income having escaped assessment.3. We have heard the arguments of the both sides and also perused the records.4. The revenue has raised the following common ground in all the above five appeals :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case of learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in cancelling the assessment holding that necessary particulars had already been disclosed by the assessee and therefore, notice issued under section 148 was ab initio void, ignoring the fact that the as...
Tag this Judgment!Accumax Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: [2000]79ITD271(Jodh)
ORDERSri Behari Lal, A.M.This appeal has been filed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Rajkot, dated 22-1-1993 for assessment year 1984-85. The various grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are as follows :'1. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance under the provisions of section 37(3A) to (3D)2. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance under the provisions of section 80HHC.'The appellant submits that the confirmation of the disallowance under section 80HHC is not justified.'2. The assessee is a Public Ltd. Company engaged in the manufacture of drilling machines and other machineries. In this case, the regular assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 29-2-1988 on a total income of Rs. 10,61,140.The Commissioner (Appeals), Rajkot vide his order dated 26-9-1988 set aside the assessment on the point to examine the element of sales promotion expenses involved in the sales commission paid by the assessee to its sole-sellin...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab Travels Co. Vs. Union of India and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC755; 2001(1)WLN707
ORDERBalia, J.(1). These three appeals raises common questions, in similar facts and circumstances, about the chargeability of tax under Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 in respect of vehicles plying in Rajasthan as tourist coaches having authorisation certificates issued under the Motor Vehicles (All India Permit for Tourist Transport Operators) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1993) framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hence are heard and decided togetherSpecial Appeal (Writ) No. 219/2000:(2). The petitioner-appellant is an approved tourist transport operator under the Rules of 1993. It holds permit in respect of vehicles in question from the State Transport Authority, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. It holds an All India Tourist Permit under the Rules of 1993 which have been framed for giving effect to provisions of Sec. 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (a Central enactment) That is for providing issue of authorisation certificate in the case of ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Judge, Industrial Tribunal and Labour ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR223]; (2002)IVLLJ688Raj; 2000(4)WLC634; 2001(1)WLN310
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. The petitioners State of Rajasthan and its Executive Engineer have challenged in this petition the impugned award passed by the Labour Court whereby the respondent workmen were ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages. While admitting this petition initially the impugned award was stayed but later on stay was modified on an application filed under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and all the respondents workmen were reinstated in service. Thus, they are in service since 1995 till today,2. On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination of the workmen was wrong and illegal, therefore, it was set aside. The Labour Court gave clear finding that while retaining the juniors, the service of the respondents workmen were terminated. However, Mr. B.C. Mehta for the petitioners tried to submit that those juniors were given appointment on compassionate ground on the d...
Tag this Judgment!Bhera Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC455; 2001(1)WLN30
ORDERShethna, J.(1). The respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed suit against the petitioners for partision of their agricultural land before the court of Addl. Collector and S.D.O., Jodhpur. As many as 7 issues were framed by him in the suit. Issue no. 6 was decided as a preliminary issue against the plaintiffs- present respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and consequently the suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 20.7.1999. It was challenged by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur. The period of limitation for filing the appeal was 60 days, meaning thereby, the last date was 19.9.1999. However, the appeal was filed within time i.e. on 10.8.1999. It must be stated that in appeal only certified copy of the judgment was filed, but not the decree.(2). Before the appellate court, the petitioners raised objection about the maintainability of appeal on the ground that it was time barred inasmuch as certified copy of the decree was not filed alongwith the ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Heera Singh Contractor and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj47; 2001(1)WLC99
J.C. Verma, J. 1. The State has come up in this civil misc. appeal against the order dated 2-4-1998 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Karauli whereby the award given by the Arbitrator has been made a rule of law. The challenge is made on the ground that the Court where the Arbitration award had been filed under the Act had not issued any notice to the State and, therefore, the mandatory provisions to allow the present appellant to file the objections have been violated. 2. The facts as stated are that the Arbitrator had passed an award on 17-8-1995 in favour of Heera Singh Contractor, the respondent for the claim of Rs. 11,68,837/- for the work actually executed and loss occurred to the respondent because of certain alleged unauthorised and Illegal action of the State. The Arbitrator had also awarded interest @ 18% from 1-7-1988 to 31-8-1995. 3. It is alleged that the objections were filed on the ground that same matter was also pending in the Civil Court and, therefore, no arbi...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ230; 2001(1)WLN575
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment dated 20-4-1998 and order of sentence dated 23-4-1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 68/97 (new) and 104/97 (old) by which he convicted the accused appellant in the following manner :- Name of convicted Sentence accused under awarded appellant Section Om Prakash 376(2)(f) IPC Ten years' RI and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months RI. 342 IPC Six months RI 323 IPC Six months RI2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :-On 30-6-1997 at about 5.00 P.M., PW 3 Anita aged 9 years lodged an oral report before PW 12 Charan Singh, SHO, Police Station Panchu District Bikaner stating inter alia that she is a student of Class Ist in the School 'Maharani Laxmi Bai Kanya Patshala', village Panchu. PW 2 Lalit, son of her uncle Gopikishan, PW 7, also reads in Class IIIrd in the same ...
Tag this Judgment!New Mitharwal Construction Co. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(NULL)531
ORDERP.M. Jagtap, A.M.This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) I, Jodhpur, dated 26-9-1995.2. Out of the total seven grounds taken by the assessee in this appeal, grounds 1 to 3 relate to allowance of depreciation, ground No. 5 relates to allowance of interest paid to partners and ground No. 6 relates to the allowance of interest to third parties out of income from contract receipts computed by applying net profit rate.3. We have heard both the parties and also perused the materials on record. It is observed that all the issues involved in these grounds are squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of Honble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Jain Construction Co. and subsequent judgment of the Honble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of same assessee delivered on 15-3-2000 (reported as CIT v. Jain Construction Co. (2001) 22 DTC 574 (Raj) : . As such respectfully following the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. HussaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC604; 2001(1)WLN308
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner Mohd. Hussain has applied for allotment of small patch of land before the S.D.O., Suratgarh-respondent No. 4. His application was granted and the order of allotment of land was passed by S.D.O., Suratgarh in favour of the petitioner on 4.1.1995 and he was ordered to deposit Rs. 11,742/- which he deposited on the same day in treasury. However, immediately after passing of the order of allotment, the S.D.O., Suratgarh realised that the land in question which was allotted to the petitioner was falling in the category of 'special allotment', therefore, it could not have been allotted as small patch of land. Therefore, on that very day i.e. on 4.1.1995, he passed on order of cancellation of allotment Annex. 3 and ordered that if the petitioner had deposited the said amount, the same shall be refunded to him. Aggrieved of this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority but the same was dismissed vide order dated 1.9.1995 (An...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Singh Jhala Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR992]; (2002)IVLLJ673Raj; 2000(4)WLC685; 2001(1)WLN313
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. A short question of law involved in this petition is, 'Whenever the Labour Court set aside the termination order, is it bound to order reinstatement with back wages?'2. It all depends upon the facts of each case. If the services of permanent employee is found to be wrongly terminated then certainly order of reinstatement with back wages has to follow. But, there are cases and cases in which such an order of reinstatement with back wages would not be proper.3. In the instant case, the petitioner workman was admittedly employed purely on daily wage basis on the post of Class IV in the Government dispensary in April, 1988 on a fixed salary of Rs. 600/- per month. It is also admitted fact that he has never worked continuously on the post in question and he had worked with several breaks in service. However, from the date of his first employment in April, 1988 till his termination i.e. in January, 1990 he managed to complete 240 days, therefore, the Labour Court was of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »