Rajasthan Court March 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.
indus Hotel Corporation Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC692; 2001(3)WLN107
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). The assessee challenges the assessment order dt. 15th March, 2000 (An-nexure-9).(3). The assessee-petitioner has constructed a new hotel which started operation w.e.f. 1.8.98 and came within the purview of Land & Building Tax Act w.e.f. 1.4.99. On that basis notice was issued u/S. 22 for securing information about the same. The assessee claimed during the assessment proceedings that 'tourism' has been declared to be an industry within the Slate of Rajasthan by notification issued by His Excellency Governor of Rajasthan on 4.3.89 (Annexure-2). The benefits to be extended to such industry were to be made known separately. Thereafter in pursuance of declaration of Industrial Policy, 1998 published by the Govt. of Rajasthan, a notification was issued on 27.5.98 in exercise of its powers u/S. 3 read with Section 21 of Rajasthan Land & Building Tax Act, 1964 by which the minimum limit in respect of land and buildingused for indust...
M/S Prakash Chitra Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLN538
Balia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). The petitioner challenges the continuance of the proceedings of assessment in pursuance of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20th February, 1998 which order stood set aside by the Tribunal in appeal on 18th May, 1998.(3). The assessee was assessed to his income for the assessment year 1993-94 by assessment order dated 28.6.1995.(4). The Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 263 initiated the proceedings and held that the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly set aside the same and directed the Income Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. In pursuance of that order the Assessing Officer issued notice on 26.2,98. However, before any order could be made in pursuance of order of CIT on appeal by the petitioner the order of the Commissioner was set aside by the Tribunal by its order dated 18th Ma...
S.G. Kale Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR148(Raj); 2001(4)WLC802; 2001(4)WLN285
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the assessee challenges the authorisation issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax on January 20, 1992, to include the name of the petitioner who was then an accountant engaged in Jodhpur Woolen Mills in the order under Section 279(1) for the assessment year 1982-83 passed by his predecessor in the office on March 13, 1991, for prosecuting the petitioner under Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The petitioner is an officer of a company known as Jodhpur Woolen Mills Ltd. The facts of the case as emerge from the record of this case are that by communication dated August 3, 1989, the then Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, issued a notice to the company to show cause against a proposal to launch prosecution under Section 276B of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1985-86. After receiving the reply of the company, the Commissioner of Income-tax vide his order dated March 13, 1991, sancti...
Khet Singh and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN13
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. Heard.2. These bunch of cases are being decided by a common judgment because the questions raised in all the writ petitions are of common origin and broadly to the same effect.3. The petitions have been filed by the prisoners convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The grievance of the petitioners is three fold. First is that the petitioners case is not being considered by the respondent State for granting parole under the Rajasthan Release of Prisoners on Parole Rules, 1958 as amended by the Rajasthan Release of Prisoners on Parole Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the parole has been defined in Rule 2(d), which reads as under:'Parole' means suspension of sentence of a prisoner under these Rules;4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Rule 9 which speaks of the eligibility for the grant of parole. Rule 9 reads as under:A prisoner who has com...
S.G. Kale Vs. Union of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Raj)214
ORDER UNDER S. 279(1) OF THE INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT, 1961The above named assessee is a limited company being assessed to tax with Dy. Commissioner (Asst.) Special Range, Jodhpur, and controlled by the managing directors Svs. S.M. Kankaria and S.C. Kankaria and Directors Svs. P.M. Kankaria and L.K. Kankaria who were in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business. It was carrying on business of Woollen Mill and Gwar gum during the material period relevant to the assessment year.2. On going through the details available on record it was noticed that the assessee had Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) of Rs. 1,38,197 for the assessment year 1982-83 from the payment of interest to various parties, but failed to deposit the amount of tax so deducted to the credit of the Central Government, within the prescribed time-limit under section 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with r. 30 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Thus, the company as well as its directors are liable for...
Prakash Chitra Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2001
Reported in: [2001]249ITR760(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The petitioner challenges the continuance of the proceedings of assessment in pursuance of the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 20-2-1998, which order stood set aside by the Tribunal in appeal on 18-5-1998.2. The assessee was assessed on his income for the assessment year 1993-94 by an assessment order dated 28-6-1995.The Commissioner in exercise of his powers under section 263 initiated proceedings and held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and accordingly set aside the same and directed the Income Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. In pursuance of that order, the assessing officer issued notice on 26-2-1998. However, before any order could be made in pursuance of the order of the Commissioner, on appeal by the petitioner, the order of the Commissioner was set aside by the Tribunal by its order dated 18-5-1998, in I. T. A. No. ...
Hanuman Prasad Vs. District Judge, Merta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj398; 2001(2)WLC423; 2001(2)WLN271
ORDERDr. Chauhan, J. (1). The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Election Tribunal dated 7.2.2001 (Annex. 4), by which the election of the petitioner has been declared void and direction has been issued to hold fresh election.(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Peeh, Tehsit Merta, district Nagaur and respondents No. 2 to 6 stood defeated. Respondent No.2 filed election pelition No. 12/2000 before the District Judge, Merta on the grounds, inter alia, that petitioner was involved in a criminal case and on the date of filing the nomination papers, charges had been framed against him, therefore, under the provisions of Section 19(gg) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act'), he was disqualified to contest the election. During pendency of the election petition, criminal trial stood concluded and petitioner was acquitted. Thus, he took the plea ...
Om Prakash and Others Vs. Regional Transport Authority and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLN279
ORDERChauhan, J.(1). The instant writ petition has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (S.T.A.T.) dated 24.7.2000 (Annx.6) by which the learned Tribunal has quashed the Resolution of the Regional Transport Authority (R.T.A.) dated 2.4.1998 (Annex. 5) by which the R.T.A. had rejected the applications for grant of permit on the route on the ground that there was no vacancy as per the inter-state reciprocal agreement.(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner No.l and the predecessor in interest of petitioner No.2 had been granted permit on the route Sidhmukh- Hisarvia Gorchi inter state route lying between the State of Rajas than and Haryana, in view of the provisions of reciprocal inter-state agreement dated 8.2.1968 which provided that the Rajasthan State shall grant two permits and each permit holder shall have a single trip daily on the aforesaid route. The said permits had been countersigned...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur Vs. M/S. Lake Palace Hotels and Mo ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR644(Raj); 2001(2)WLN482
ORDERBalia, J.(1) This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal has referred the following common question of law to this Court the case of assessee for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 for answer:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT is legally justified in holding that the hotel business is an industrial undertaking and therefore the- assessee is enlitled to investment allowance under Sec. 32A of the IT Act?'(2). The brief facts giving rise to this reference are: that the assessee is a Company running hotels at Udaipur. The hotels of the assessee-Company were being operated by the Indian Hotels Company Limited and 50% of the net operating profits were paid as operation fee. The assessee-Company claimed investment allowance on the hotel building treating the same as...
Logar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC512; 2001(2)WLN397
ORDERGarg, J.(1). This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner againsl the judgment and order dated 19.12.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 32/2000 (105/2000) by which he dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 1.9.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabh Nagar, District Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 55/96 whereby the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC and sentenced in the following manner:-Name of accused petitionerConvicted under SectionSentence awardedLogar279 IPCThree months SI and a fine of Rs. IOO/-, in default of payment of fine,lo further undergo (en days' SI.337 IPCThree months' SI and a line of Rs. 100/-, In default of payment of fine,tofurther undergo ten days' SI.338 IPCSix months' SI and a fine of Rs. 200/-. in default of pay...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »