Rajasthan Court February 2001 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporat ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR587(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 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 to raise two questions of law said to be arising out of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 490/JP of 1997 for the assessment year 1995-96, in view of the fact that Reference Application No. 41/Jodhpur of 1997 has been refused by the Tribunal vide its order dated March 5, 1998. The questions of law proposed by the Commissioner of Income-tax for the purpose of making reference to this court for its opinion are as under :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the demands raised under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the principal officer (DDO) wa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pushpa Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR495(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue. None appeared for the respondent in spite of service.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, by its order dated July 13, 1994, has referred the following two questions of law arising out of two separate appeals filed by the assessee and the Department for the assessment year 1985-86 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the action of the Assessing Officer in non-issuing of notices of one LH was not bona fide and diligent ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in annulling the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer ?' 3. The relevant facts for the present purposes are that the assessee who was liable to be assessed for the assessment year 1985-86 was Kantilal Saraf an individual who was deriving income as partner from a re...
Tag this Judgment!Ranveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN429
Yadav, J. 1. In the present bail application, the Court is called upon to decide at first instance as to whether Shri Ved Pal Shastri, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the accused- applicant, is entitled to be given audience as an Advocate, wearing 'Dhoti.'2. It is to be observed at the outset that after liquidating ego, with sense of divinity, the members of Bar and Bench both are to act as role model upholding the supremacy of rule of law. This Court can neither afford craving for particular dress by Advocates against the statutory provisions prescribed under law, while giving audience in a case, nor it can afford aversion of wearing 'Dhoti' by an Advocate, while addressing the Court, if statutory Rules relating to dress of Advocates prescribed Dhoti as sober dress. The only concern of this Court, is to see that the Court must act and function in clean ambience of law, detaining the confidence of general public at large and litigant public in particular that supremacy of rule of law ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Branch Manager, Lic of India, Bhinmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Raj)408
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard 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 to raise two questions of law said to be arising out of order of Tribunal in ITA No. 490/Jp/1997 for the assessment year 1995-96, in view of the fact that Ref. Appln. No. 41/Jd/1997 has been refused by the Tribunal vide its order, dated 5-3-1998. The questions of law proposed by the Commissioner for the purpose of making reference to this court for its opinion are as under :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the demands raised under sections 201(1) and 201(A) of the Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the principal officer (DDO) was justified in not deducting tax at source from conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowan...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Raj)94
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard learned counsel for the revenue . None, appeared for the respondent in spite of service.2. The Appellate Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur by its order dated 13-7-1994, has referred following two questions of law arising of two separate appeals filed by the assessee and the department for the assessment year 1985-86 :1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the action of the assessing officer in non-issuing of notices of one assessing officer was not bona fide and diligent.2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in annulling the assessment order passed by the assessing officer ?'3. The relevant facts for the present purposes are that the assessee who was liable to be assessed for assessment year 1985-86 was Kantilal Saraf as individual who was deriving his income as partner from registered firm M/s Usha Bleaching Centre, Pali and also from t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Metalising Equipment Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Raj)68
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an application under section 256(2) at the instance of Commissioner, Jodhpur, requiring the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the two questions of law said to be arising out of order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 262/Jp/92 to this court for its opinion. The question of law proposed are as under :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Honble Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), directing the assessing officer to allow deduction under section 32AB ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honble Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the issue of claim under section 32AB of the Act is debatable even though the provisions of section 32A(8) and 32AB(10) of the Act are very clear and these provisions have been further clarified by Circular No. 559, dated 4-5-1990 of the CBDT ?'The Tribunal has refus...
Tag this Judgment!Jodhpur Chartered Accountants Society and Another Vs. State of Rajasth ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas42(Raj); 2001(2)WLC17; 2001(4)WLN170
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ.(1). The petitioner No.1 is a society of Chartered Ac-countanls registered under Ihe provisions of (he Rajaslhan Societies Registration Acl, 1958. According to the petitioners Ihe society has been formed inter alia with Ihe object of espousing and advocating the cause of the profession and its members and also to represent them before the Authorities and Courts. Petitioner No.2 is a Chartered Accountant and President of the Society and filed this wril petition for himself and for and on behalf of the society and all its members.(2). The State government of Rajasthan has introduced the Rajasthan Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 2000 in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly on 30th March, 2000, while inter-alia, invoking and giving the declaration under Section 3 of Ihe Rajasthan Provisional Colleclion of Tax Act, 1958, proposed to enact the Rajasthan Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings & Employments Act, 2000, to provide for Ihe levy and collec...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Rajendra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN401
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J.1. All the above appeals were filed by the State of Rajasthan against the common judgment dated February 2, 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, partly allowing the writ petitions filed by the respective respondents.WRIT APPEAL NO. 635/2000(2). The respondent Rajeridra filed the Writ Petition No. 4432/98 to declare Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996 to be arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Constitution and to quash the communication dated 18.10.97 and 7/8.1.98 and consequently direct the respondents to consider the application of the respondent petitioner for suitable appointment after taking into consideration his qualification in accordance with the Rules with consequential benefits. The Respondent's father died on 4.5.1995. At the time of his death the respondent was about 15 years of age and was student of 8lh standard. He passed out the Senior Secondary Examination in 1996. Thereafter he submitted an application seeking appointment o...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kulwant Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC570; 2001(3)WLN474
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ.(1). By consent of both parties, belli the appeals were taken up for final hearing. Both the appeals were preferred by Smt. Kulwant Kaur, the petitioner in Writ petitions No. 2973/94 and 1373/87. Writ Petition No. 1373/87 was filed by the appellant to quash the order dated 11.5.1987 and to stay the operation of the same during the pendency of the writ petition.(2), By order dated 25.11.1983, the appellant was given appointment on temporary basis till the end of the academic session on the post of Teacher Gr. III by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Padampur and she was posted in Middle School, Village 1-CC. By order dated 4.5.84 the services of the teachers mentioned therein were brought to end from the afternoon of 16.5.1984. The appellant was relieved. Once again the appellant was given appointment to the very post by order dated 30.6.84 on temporary basis for a period of 6 months or till selected teachers are available whichever is earlier. It was staled in t...
Tag this Judgment!Black Stone Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anot ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC101; 2001(3)WLN98
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). The petitioner Company engaged in the business of tyre retreading and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, has challenged the notice An-nexure-7 dated 11.2.99 issued u/Sec. 29 of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 for the period 1996-97 to be governed by Ihe provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 calling upon the assessee to show the details of the purchase made by him of the raw-materials whether within the State of Rajasthan or in the course of inter-State trade and commerce from outside State of Rajasthan because he intends to include cost incurred by the assessee on manufacturing the tread rubber by one of its units before it is handed over to another unit of it for utilising in re-treading of the tyres for doing job work.(3). These notices are Annexure 6 and 7 appended to the writ petition. The assessee has filed Ihe writ petition before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal challenging the said nolices on n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »