Rajasthan Court October 2001 Judgments
Cit Vs. Surendra Textiles
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)555; [2002]258ITR387(Raj)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this courtR. A. Nos. 19 and 20/JP of 1989'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Central Government subsidy is not deductible from the money cost to the assessee of its plant, machinery and building while computing the original cost thereof under section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of allowing depreciation or investment allowance, etc. ?'R.A. Nos. 21 and 22/JP of 1989'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that deduction under section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be allowed on the gross income before deducting depreciation and investment allowance ?'The relevant facts are that the assessee is in receipt of Central/State Government subsidy during the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1984-85 an...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Ram anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN268
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard, learned Counsel for the parties. These two appeals arise out of common order passed by learned Single Judge on 18.7.2000 deciding S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 923/99, Nand Ram v. State of Raj and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 920/99. Both the writ petitions were preferred by two indepent cultivators of chak 3 B.H.M., whose total holdings admeasured 53 bighas, challenging the same order dated 6.11.1998 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation by which he did not confirm the order passed by Divisional Irrigation Officer for supply of water to the petitioner- appellant in each case through outlet situated at stone No. 378 through existing water course in chak No. 2B.H.M.(A).2. The land in question is situated in Chak No. 3 B.H.M. The land was getting its water supply through water course existing in Chak 3 B.H.M. from the outlet meant for supply therefor, when the petitioner-appellants made applications for getting water supply for Irrigation through the e...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Lime Stone Ltd. and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Mines and Mine ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC688
Verma, J.1. The petitioner Associated Lime Stone Limited, a registered company, is aggrieved against not opening the 'price bid' submitted by the petitioner in response to the calling of the tenders vide Annexure-1 by the Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. respondent. The respondent No. 1 had called for short term NIT for supply of Crystalline Calcareous Additive vide the publication dated 1.3.2001. The details and quantity and required was as under:-A.I.% - Maximum 3%Mgo - Maximum 1%R203 - Maximum 0.75%Cao - Minimum 51%Size : Minimum 2' Maximum 12' 2. The conditions of the tender were that (1) the tenderer should have operative mines; (2) should have valid mining lease for Calcite; (3) should have valid approved mien plan from Indian Bureau of Mines. It was further directed that the tenderer shall be pre-qualilied on the basis of documents furnished in support of the bid. The price bid of the only qualified and technocommercially accepted tenders were to be opened. The other cond...
Tag this Judgment!Goverdhan Lal and ors. Vs. Gajendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC419
Khem Chand Sharma, J. 1. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that respondent Gajendra Kumar submitted an application under Section 25 read with Sections 10 and 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') stating therein that marriage of respondentwas solemnized with Smt. Sushma Sharma D/o appellants Nos. 1 and 2. It is stated that out of this wedloock, two children, namely Virendra and Ashish were born. Smt. Sushma passed away on 12-3-1988 and at the time of her death, since there was none to lookafter minor Ashish aged only 3 months, the respondent, as per the application, left his son Ashish with appellants Nos. 1 to 3. The respondent further averred that appellant No. 3 had great affection for Ashish and as such, appellants Nos. 1 and 2 decided to marry Rama-Sharma, appellant No. 3 with respondent. Rama did not agree to this proposal and ultimately, the respondent married himself with one Seema. The respondent prayed that he being natural gu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Laxmi Stores
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-2001
Reported in: [2003]261ITR621(Raj)
1. We have heard Mr. L.M. Lodha, learned counsel for the Revenue.2. This is a reference application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Department.3. The respondent-assessee firm deals in certain brands of cigarettes manufactured by Godfrey Philips India Ltd. During the search and seizure operation on January 9, 1986, certain incriminating documents were found and they were seized. During the course of proceedings under Section 132(5) the partners of the firm, namely, Smt. Bhagwani Bai and Shri Nandlal, admitted that the assessee-firm did charge on money and a portion of the money so collected was retained by the firm. It was also admitted that the portion of the money so kept by the firm was not accounted in the books of account of the firm. The assessee did not disclose the said money in the return filed for the assessment year 1983-84. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 2,10,060 to the total income of the assessee as concealed ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Laxmi Stores
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)548
By the CourtWe have heard Mr. L.M. Lodha, learned counsel for the revenue.2. This is a reference application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act at the instance of the department.3. The respondent assessee firm deals in certain brands of cigarettes manufactured by M/s. Godfray Philips India Ltd. During the search and seizure operation on, 9-1-1986, certain incriminating documents were found and they were seized. During the course of proceedings under section 132(5) the partners of the firm, namely, Smt. Bhagwani Bai and Shri Nandlal admitted that the assessee-firm did not (sic) charge on money and a portion of the money so collected was retained by the firm. It was also admitted that the portion of the money so kept by the firm was not accounted in the books of accounts of the firm. The assessee did not disclose the said money in the return filed for the assessment year 1983-84. Accordingly, the assessing officer added a sum of Rs. 2,10,060 to the total income of the assessee as...
Tag this Judgment!ito Vs. S.L. Choudhary
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-2001
Reported in: (2001)73TTJ(NULL)699
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.This appeal by revenue for assessment year 1991-92 is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 10-1-1994.2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records.3. The revenue has raised the sole ground disputing the learned Commissioner (Appeals)'s impugned order in allowing benefit of exemption from tax under section 53 in respect of sale proceeds of the residential house sold by assessees. The learned Departmental Representative of revenue has contended that the assessing officer had included Rs. 39,721 as capital gain arising from the sale of residential house but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition allowing benefit of exemption under section 53 of the Income Tax Act. He has contended that the assessee having another house at Faridabad was not entitled to exemption in view of proviso to section 53, which provided that the exemption will not be available, if the assessee owns any other reside...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Cit Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-2001
Reported in: (2002)77TTJ(NULL)352
ORDERB.L. Khatri, A.M.This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur, dated 28-11-1995, for assessment year 1992-93. The revenue-appellant has agitated on various grounds.2. Ground No. 1 : Deletion of disallowance of expenditure of Ghosunda Dam amounting to Rs. 2,74,48,445 made by assessing officer treating it as capital expenditure. This ground is with reference to the expenditure incurred on the alterations effected in the construction of Ghosunda Dam. A similar issue arose for consideration in assessment year 1991-92. This issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in ITA No. 1106/Jp/94 wherein it was held that the expenditure incurred only enabled the carrying on of business more efficiently and more economically and that no new asset was created or any property acquired, the expenditure was purely revenue in nature in view of various judgments cited therein.'3. Ground Nos. 2, 5 and 6 :(i) Ground No. 2 per...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC781; 2000WLC(Raj)UC83
S.K. Sharma, J.1. The appellant was found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge Tonk vide judgment dated January 23. 1995 in Sessions Case No. 106/93. He was convicted and sentenced under Sections 457, 382 and 302 IPC as under:- U/s. 457IPCto under to 3 Years RI and fine of rs..200/- in default tofurther undergo one months RI.U/s. 382IPCto undergo 2 years Rl and fine of Rs..200/- in default tofurther undergo one month RLU/Sec. 302IPCto undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 200indefault to further undergo one month RI.All the sentence were directed to run concurrently. 2. The incident, as pictured by the prosecution, happened like this. Virendra Singh (PW.1) former Sarpanch of village Bench submitted a written report ex.P.1 with the Police Station Baroni (Took) on September 11, 1993 in regard to brutal murder of a village lady Sushila who on the previous night slept alone in her house as her husband had gone to well to irrigate the field and her father-in-law slept in the corrido...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Cit Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-2001
Reported in: (2002)77TTJ(NULL)344
ORDERB.L. Khatri, A.M.This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur, dated 20-2-1994, for assessment year 1991-92. The appellant-revenue agitated on various grounds which are discussed as under :2. Ground No. 1 : The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 15,21,30,864 being expenditure on construction of Ghosunda Dam, by holding that the expenditure was of revenue in nature, whereas the expenditure was of capital in nature.3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed deduction under section 37 on account of investment in construction of Ghosunda Dam as revenue expenditure in the revised return. The Ghosunda Dam is located at Appawas village and supplies water to its Chanderia smelter. The assessing officer disallowed the same on ground that the expenditure on construction of Ghosunda Dam was of capital nature. He referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devidas Vi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »