Rajasthan Court January 2001 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.
Cit Vs. Rao Raja Hanut Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: [2001]117TAXMAN613(Raj)
ORDERThis is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for directing the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer the following questions of law said to be arising out of its order passed in IT Appeal No. 49 of 1973-74 for the assessment year 1953-54 to this court for its opinion.2. The assessee Late Rao Raja Hanut Singh since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives was a scion of former Administrator of the State of Marwar, Sir Pratap Singh, the Maharaja of Idar. The assessee was a renowned international polo player and sportsman of distinction having been conferred with titles and honours, both by erstwhile British Government as well as after Independence, by the Government of India. The assessee frequently used to visit Britain especially during the polo season. He had bank accounts in Britain throughout the relevant period which fell within the realm of respective assessment years 1953...
Cit Vs. Jai Mewar Wine Contractors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Raj)97; 2002(1)WLC399
Rajesh Balia, J.A question of law has been referred to this court at the instance of revenue by Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, arising out of its order, dated 8-8-1978, in ITA No. 982/Jp/1976-77 for assessment year 1972-73.2. The facts as stated in the statement of case are that assessee M/s Jai Mewar Wine Contractors, Udaipur, was a firm consisting of 9 partners, namely, Birbal Khan, Shiv Narain, Sohan Lal S/o Hira Lal, Both Lal, Badru Khan, Narendra Kumar, Jagdish Lal, Sohan Lal S/o Mohan Lal and Kamal Chand.Before commencement of assessment year 1972-73 with effect from 1-4-1972, the assessee filed an application in Form No. 11 on 30-3-1972, for registration of the firm along with partnership deed dated 27-3-1972. The Income Tax Officer was satisfied about genuineness of details furnished in the Form and therefore, by order, dated 30-11-1974, granted certificate of registration to the firm.In the partnership deed, dated 27-3-1972, it was stated that the firm has commenced its busin...
Megha Aluminium Industries Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC248; 2007(3)WLN468
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. The petitioner Megha Aluminum Industries was allotted an industrial plot measuring 4000 Sq. Mtrs at Kaladera Industrial Area on certain terms and conditions which envisaged deposit of development charges also from the allottees at the rate prevalent from time to time. The petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- towards development charges since the respondents Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO for short had revised the rate of development charges from Rs. 60/- per eq. Mtrs to Rs. 80/- per Sq. Mtrs. with effect from 1.4.1996. The petitioner admittedly failed to deposit this amount as a result of which even as per his own averment, a show cause notice dated 14.11.1996 was issued to him informing him that he had to deposit 75% amount within 90 days of the allotment after which the sale-deed had to be registered. The petitioner was requested to submit his explanation within 30 days regarding the reasons for non-c...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Avon Emery Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Raj)135
ORDERBy the court :Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed by the revenue for seeking direction to the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer the following questions of law said to be arising out of order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 347/Jp/94 for the assessment year 1991-92 to this court for its opinion.3. The facts which are not in dispute and has been made foundation for raising aforesaid questions are that as per assessment order assessee's net taxable income computed in accordance with provisions of income-tax after allowing all deductions and adjustments under the Act, but before claiming deduction under section 80HH or section 80-I both of which are part of Chapter IV-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounted to Rs. 1,85,671. The assessee is entitled to claim 20 per cent deduction under section 80HH being profit and gains from newly established undertaking in backwar...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Murardan Barhat and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR427(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner, in this appeal challenges the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in Miscellaneous Application No. 9/JP/1998 filed by the appellant-Commissioner of Income-tax for rectification of orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 501/JP of 1991 dated May 2, 1997.3. The present appeal concerns the assessment of income of Murardan Barhat and Company, Gunga, District Barmer. In the income of the assessee-firm originally the income of Murardan Barhat and Co. (Canal Works) was also included by holding the said firm to be not a genuine firm but merely a front of the assessee-respondent and that has resulted in assessment of the firm as unregistered firm. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in its order referred to the fact that in the appeal filed by Murardan Barhat and Company (Canal Works) for the assessment year 1985-86, in two appeals filed by Murardan Barhat (Canal Works), Gunga...
Smt. Nirmala Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2679
ORDERBhagwati Prasad, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.2. The present appeal has been filed against the order of the Court below whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 326, IPC and sentenced to three years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 3200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo ten months' R.I.3. Learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the factum of conviction. How-ever, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that instead of requiring the accused appellant to serve out the complete sentence, it would be appropriate that accused appellant may be released for the period already undergone. He offers that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- may be offered to be paid as compensation to the victim Narbada or her legal representatives.4. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that accused appellant was sentenced in the year 1991, the incident is of the year 1989 and the appeal ...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-2001
Reported in: [2001]123STC172(Raj); 2000(1)WLC510
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner challenges order passed by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, setting aside the penalty levied against respondent-dealer under Section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.3. The reason for levy of penalty by the competent officer was that at the time of checking of the vehicle, while the goods were in transit, the goods were unaccompanied by declaration in form S.T. 18A by the importer. On appeal, said penalty had been set aside by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) with the findings that all the documents except form S.T. 18A was accompanying the goods, disclosing all material particulars, required to be disclosed for the purpose of Section 22A(3) and, therefore, no mens rea can be imputed on the part of respondent-dealer, for avoidance or evasion of the tax that was payable or will become payable within State of Rajasthan in respect of such goods. On that finding, penalty levied to the extent of 30 per cent of value of the g...
Sunil and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3063
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Appellants Sunil Sindhi, Lokendra Singh both residents of Delhi Mahesh resident of Muradabad in D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 273/96 and Sunil Gupta in D.B. Cr. Jail Appeal No. 292/96 were charged and put to trial for committing dacoity along with one Joraram alias Vinod in the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd July of 1993 in the house of PW-4 Satidan Singh in village Arang District Banner and in the course of dacoity committed the murder of Nag Singh.The Additional Sessions Judge, Banner convicted and sentenced the appellants as follows :-302 /149 IPC Sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment. 395/149 IPC Sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment.396/149 IPC Sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Murardan Bharat and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-2001
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Raj)105
By the CourtHeard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner, in this appeal challenges the order passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in Misc. Appln. No. 9/Jp/1998 filed by the appellant Commissioner for rectification of orders passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 501/Jp/91, dated 2-5-1997.3. The present appeal concerns the assessment of income of M/s Murardan Barhat & Co., Gunga, Distt. Barmer. In the income of assessee-firm originally the income of M/s Murardan Barhat & Co. (Canal Works) was also included by holding the said firm to be not a genuine firm but merely a front of the assessee-respondent and that has resulted in assessment of the firm as unregistered firm. The Tribunal in its order referred to the fact that in appeal filed by M/s Murardan Barhat & Co. (Canal Works) for the assessment year 1985-86 in two appeals filed by M/s Murardan Barhat (Canal Works), Gunga, for the assessment year 1985-86 namely, ITA Nos. 1532 & 1533/Jp/1990, the Tribunal has categorical...
Union of India and ors. Vs. L.C. Paliwal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR499]; 2001(1)WLC590; 2001(2)WLN460
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ.1. Heard Mr. R.K. soni, learned counsel for the Union of India and Mr. J.K. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent herein.(2). The respondent No. I/applicant before the Tribunal was employed by Ihe Railways as a Manager of a non-statutory canteen in the Western Railway at Udaipur. The pay scale of the Manager Grade I of the statutqry canteen was revised from Rs. 300-500 to 330-560 with effect.from 1.4.82. The Railway Board, by a leller dated 13.5.83, revised Ihe pay scale in pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Couri in MMR Khan's case in respect of Ihe employees of non-stalulory canteens also. The Supreme Court, by its order dated 22.4.83 in MMR Khan's case held mat all the employees of non-statutory canteen will be paid at the same rate and at the same basis on which employees of statutory canteens are being paid. The Supreme Court has further direcled that the said direction will take effect from 1.6.82. That being the date, from which according to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »