Rajasthan Court February 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. Motilal R. Minda
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR831(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service.2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'), for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer the following question of law said to be arising out of the Tribunal's order in I. T. A. No. 200/ JP of 1991, dated February 2,1995, relating to the assessment year 1987-88 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in allowing deduction under Section 80HHC on the counter sales in India to the foreigners, which are not subjected to customs clearance, ignoring the specific provisions of Section 80HHC(4A) of the Income-tax Act ?'3. The Tribunal has rejected the application under Section 256(1) of the Act of 1961 on the ground that no question of law referable to the High Court arises from its appellate ord...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fateh Dangi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR593(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'), for directing 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 its order dated January 17, 1995, passed in I.T.A. No. 89/JP of 1995 because an application under Section 256(1) has been rejected by the Tribunal on January 22, 1996, by holding that no question of law arises out of the appellate order :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(a) on the ground that the assessee was ignorant of law whereas the facts indicate that he defied the law even after service of notice ? 2. Whether the Income tax Appellate Tribunal's order cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(a) is not perverse ?' 3. It has been stated by learned counsel for the resp...
Dr. Vijay K. Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC9
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. The petitioner, Dr. Vijay Kumar Agarwal, has filed the present writ petition, to get the benefit of reservation in PG Medical Course, as envisaged under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 [Act No. 1 of 1996) (hereinafter referred as 'the Act No. 1 of 1996'), with a further prayer to issue a writ of mandamus, mandating to the respondents, to provide him three per cent reservation in admission in PG Medical Course, on the basis of his result declared in Pre-PG Entrance Examination, 2000, under Ordinance 278-E of the Ordinances of the University of Rajasthan, framed under Section 30 of the University of Rajasthan Act 1946.2. The brief facts, which are relevant for decision of the present writ petition, are that the petitioner is an orthopedically handicapped person and had pursued MDBS Course from University of Rajasthan. At the time of admission to MBBS Course, he was admitted under the physicall...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Motilal R. Minda
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Raj)347
By the courtHeard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared on behalf of respondent in spite of service.2. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), for directing the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer the following question of law said to be arising out of Tribunal's order in ITA No. 200/Jp/91, dated 2-2-1995, relating to assessment year 1987-88 :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is legally justified in allowing, deduction under section 80HHC on the counter sales in India to the foreigners, which are not subjected to customs clearance, ignoring the specific provisions of section 80HHC(4A) of the Income Tax Act ?'3. The Tribunal has rejected the application under section 256(1) of the Act of 1961 on the ground that no question of law referable to the High Court arises from its appellate order :4. The issue relates to interpretation of section...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Fateh Dangi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Raj)275
ORDERHeard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), 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, dated 17-1-1995, passed in ITA No. 89/Jp/95, because an application under section 256(1) has been rejected by the Tribunal on 22-1-1996 by holding that no question of law arises out of appellate's order :1. 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(a) on the ground that the assessee was ignorant of law whereas the facts indicate that he defied the law even after service of notice ?2. 'Whether the Tribunal's order cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(a) is not perverse?'3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that since filing of the present application and during the...
Mewar Groundnut Processing Plant Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC415; 2007(3)WLN485
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner challenges the order rejecting his application for rectification for modifying the eligibility certificate by extending the benefit of exemption under the new Incentive Scheme 1989 to the petitioner even under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. He has been issued eligibility certificate by the concerned C.T.O. on 24.2.1994 under the decision of District Level Screening Committee (for short 'D.L.S.C.') in respect of the new oil industrial unit started by him, only in respect of Central Sales Tax Act which entitled him to exemption from payment of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act.3. The facts giving rise to the present case are that after commencement of new Incentive Scheme, 1989 granting exemption from payment of tax to new industrial units vide notification dated 6.7.1989 w.e.f. 5th March, 1987. The edible oil industry was put in the negative list vide notification dt. 7.5.1990 that is to say the list of industrie...
SalimuddIn and Party Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC77; 2001(2)WLN1
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ.1. Heard Mr. N.M. Lodha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, learned counsel, for the respondents.(2). This special appeal is filed by the appellant against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in DBCW Petition No. 1098/2000 dated 18.4.2000. The writ petition was filed by the appellant-petitioner by making three prayers which are as under:-(1) The respondents may kindly be directed not to make any recovery in pursuance to short fall caused from the months of January, 2000 to April, 2000; (2) The respondents may further be directed to make adequate supply of liquor in pouches as per demand of the petitioner. (3) The respondents may kindly be directed to refund the amount recovered in past, as alleged short fall. (3). Before the learned Single Judge an argument was advanced that since earlier writ petition was withdrawn, without reserving any liberty, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Accepting the contention, the learned ...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/S. Sankeshwar Metals and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2001
Reported in: [2002]125STC436(Raj); 2001(4)WLC202
ORDERBalia, J.(1). These two writ petitions arise out of a common order and hence are heard and decided together.(2). The respondent in Writ Petition No. 3002 M/s Sankeshwar Metals and another established new Industrial Unit and commenced commercial production on 1.1.86 and respondent M/s Shri Suparshwa Tube in writ petition No. 3008/99 commenced commercial production of its new industrial unit on 1.5.1986. Both of them were entitled to certain concessions under the 1985 Dispensation under the Rajasthan Sates Tax Act, 195-1. However, the Slate Government had introduced an Incentive Scheme known as Rajaslhan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme 1987 on 23.5.87 which permitted new Industrial Units under 1985 Dispensation to opt for availing benefit of Incentive Scheme, 1987 provided they make their option known to the competent Authority within 60 days of the commencement of the scheme initially. The period was extended to 150 days. However, both the units did not exercise their option within lime...
State of Rajasthan Vs. P.D. Paliwal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC121; 2001(4)WLN551
Kokje, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2335/92 decided on 17.1.97. The writ petitionerbefore the Single Bench was initially a member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service. In the year 1984, he was appointed by the State of Rajasthan as Competent Authority at Jaipur under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act'). While functioning as the Competent Aulhorily, he passed an order on 18.8.87 exempting some land transferred by its owners to Jagjivan Gran Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. a registered Cooperative Housing Society, on the basis of certain government notifications. In some other cases, the writ petitioner had rejected the application for exemption of other land owners distinguishing their cases from the cases of those who were granted exemption under Section 21 of the Act. Appeals were taken from those decisions and the Government supported the view taken by the writ petitioner in h...
Devarsa Gas Chem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC382; 2002(1)WLN200
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has been licensed to carry on business of filling and selling Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) as a parallel marketer as per Section 2 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993 (herein after the 'Order of 1993'). The activities of petitioner consisted of purchasing in bulk the liquefied petroleum gas from the bulk manufacturer of liquefied petroleum gas, in the present case Hindustan Petroleum Ltd. and packing the LPG in marketable cylinders and to sell it to end users of the gas.3. The petitioner having installed units for carrying out process of filling the gas cylinders, to be marketed for use by the buyers, after being registered as a small scale industry with the Industries Department of the State of Rajasthan, commenced his gas bottling plant somewhere in 1994 and made an application on 26th September, 1995, for obtaining eligibility certificate to secure exemption fro...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »