Rajasthan Court October 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Modi Flooring Stone Company
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Raj)60
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. It relates to asst. yr. 1982-83 and arises out of an order dt. 1st Sept., 1986, passed by the Tribunal in M.A. No. 65/Jp/1986 ITA No. 116/Jp/1985 decided on 14th Feb., 1986. (The title of the case by inadvertence mentions it to be a reference application arising out of order dt. 14th Feb., 1986).3. The application of the Revenue under Section 256(1) was rejected by the Tribunal by its order dt. 23rd June, 1987.4. The brief facts leading to this application are that the assessee-firm was carrying on the business of exploitation of stone mines and sales of stones. For the assessment year he filed his return of income in which he has claimed deduction by way of depreciation in respect of trucks owned by it on the written down value and cost of acquisition, as the case may be, at 40 per cent which was accepted by the AO.The CIT in exercise of his powers under Section...
Cit Vs. H.H. Maharao Bhim Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN26(Raj)
ORDERHeard the learned counsels for the parties.2. These four applications under section 256(2) arise out of the assessment proceedings of the same assessee for the purpose of securing direction to the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer one identical question of law said to be arising out of its appellate order for successive assessment years. It concerns the claim of the assessee to exemption under section 10(19A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') of the income from the property owned as Umaid Bhawan Palace. The question which is suggested by the Commissioner to be referred to this court for each assessment year in each case reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the rental income from Umaid Bhawan Palace was exempt under section 10(19A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'3. It is pointed out by the learned counsels for the parties that controversy has ...
B.L. Agrawal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR813]; RLW2003(3)Raj1565; 2002(4)WLN154
Garg, J.1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, who are manufactures with the prayer that the proceedings of criminal Case No. 77A/91 State v. Merta Krishak Kraya Vikrya Sahakari Samiti, Merta City and ors. for the offence under Section 29 of the Insecticides act, 1968 (herein-after referred to as 'the Act of 1968') pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Merta City be quashed.2. It arises on the following circumstances:-On 5.7.1991, a complaint was filed by Harnath Singh, Assistant Director Agriculture (Quality Control) and Insecticide Inspector, Jaipur in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Merta City against the present petitioners, who are Manufacturers and apart form them against M/s Merta Krishak Kraya Vikrya Sahakari Samiti, Merta City District Nagaur and its Manager Nathus Ram, who are dealers of the insecticide in question. It was stated in the complaint that on 25.7.1990, Assistant Director Agriculture (Quali...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Banshidhar Badri Narain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: [2004]269ITR584(Raj)
R. Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue. No one appears for the assessee in spite of service.2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer the following questions of law said to be arising out of the Appellate Tribunal's order dated March 13, 1984, for the assessment year 1975-76 in the case of the respondent-assessee :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rs. 1,85,000 is not income of the assessee representing from undisclosed sources ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in bifurcating Rs. 1,85,000 being the value of gold ornaments detected in the course of search in the year 1974 relevant to the assessment year 1975-76, to different years ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of ...
Cit Vs. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Raj)77
RAJESH BALIA, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner, Jaipur. The applicant requires this court to direct the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur to refer the following question said to be a question of law arising out of Tribunal's order dated 23-3-1981.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the issue arising from the order of the Inspecting Assitant Commissioner (Asst.) was highly debatable and it is clearly beyond the purview of section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'3. An application under section 256(1) was rejected by the Tribunal inter alia, on the ground that Tribunal has found as a fact that the amount was set apart by the company which could not be said that it was set apart to meet a known liability or the liability was well known on the date of the balance sheet and, therefore, the amo...
Cit Vs. Keshav Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)552
By the Court This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of the Tribunals order rejecting the application for making reference under section 256(1) of the Act.2. The assessee which is a co-operative society has filed return declaring his income as Rs. 71,630. The assessing officer gave finding that no separate accounts were maintained for members and non-members and the business was indivisible. While considering the claim for deductions under section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, made by the assessee he disallowed proportionate expenses relatable to such income and the net income in respect of profits and gains of the activities with its members, which was made on estimate basis, the income of the assessee was increased to Rs. 78,635.The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not agree with the assessing officer, and allowed deduction of entire expenses without dividing it proportionately.The Tribunal finally held that as the assessee was c...
Cit Vs. Fojmal Rajmal Chhabra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)550
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner, Jaipur requiring this court to direct the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question said to be a question of law arising out of the Tribunals order, dated 29-1-1979 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that interest paid by the assessee to the minors on the gift made by the partners by mere book entries is to be allowed under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1971 ?'The Tribunal has rejected the application under section 256(1) on the ground that no question of law arises out of its order.2. The respondent-firm for the assessment year 1976-77 has claimed deduction in respect of interest paid to minors on sums which were shown as deposits in the books of account. The amount standing credited to the name of minors were as a result of gi...
Cit Vs. Rajasthan Land Development Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)707
By the CourtThis application is under section 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of Commissioner Jaipur. The applicant requires this court to direct Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur to refer the following questions said to be the questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order dated 13-1-1988, in ITA No. 949/Jp/1985 and CO No. 1/Jp/86 for assessment year 1982-83.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in entertaining the additional grounds of appeal.2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-corporation is constituted for carrying out the activities as laid down in section 10(20A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not reversing the Commissioner (Appeals) finding that the income from the assessee's income from business.'2. The respondent is Rajasthan Land Development Corp...
Godha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN634
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 19.4.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banner in Criminal Appeal No. 15/1990 whereby he rejected the appeal of the accused petitioner and maintained the judgment and order dated 4.4.1990 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Banner whereby he convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act and sentenced him to 6 months S.I.2. It arises in the following circumstances:(i) On 16.9.1982 on receiving information P.W.8 Sumesh Chandra Kalla, Dy. S.P. along with police officials reached Bhedana village and opium weighing 8 kgs. and 900 gms. was recovered from the accused petitioner and for that a challan was filed against him.3. On 2.11.1983, the learned Judicial Magistrate framed charge for offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act against the accused petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.4. After conclusion o...
Hanuman Prasad Vs. Jugal Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN311
D.N. Joshi, J.1. The instant revision petition has been directed against the order dated 29th March, 2001 passes by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Civil Appeal Decree No. 78/97, where by the application filed by the petitioner-defendant Under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. has been rejected.2. With the consent of both the parties, this revision is decided finally at this stage.3. A suit was filed by the plaintiff on the ground of reasonable and bona-fide necessity against the defendant-petitioner and it was decreed and the above mentioned appeal is pending before the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner.4. The application Under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was filed before the First Appellate Court for allowing to produce the documents, namely, a copy of the decree and the judgment, a copy of the statements of Jugal Singh, a copy of the Will filed by the plaintiff against one Gulab Devi in the suit which was decided on 15.7.1999. The learned trial Court rejecte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »