Rajasthan Court April 2001 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agarwal Flooring Stone Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR595(Raj); 2002(2)WLN75
R. Balia, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law arising out of ITA No. 719/JP of 1988 relating to the assessment year 1985-86 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the addition of Rs. 37,826 made under Section 43B with the direction that if the amount of sales tax is paid within the time allowed under the sales tax law, although after the close of the year, it shall be allowed as deduction ?'2. The facts relevant for determining the aforesaid question are that the asses-see has claimed deduction on account of the liability to pay sales tax amounting to Rs. 37,826 which had not been actually paid during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question. The assesses has claimed that as per the relevant sales tax law, the assessee has incurred the liability for the previous ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gokuldass and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR633(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law arising out of its appellate order dated July 29, 1980, passed in I.T.A. No. 1011/JP of 1979 for the assessment year 1997-98 (sic) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Commissioner of INCOME-tax (Appeals) to entertain the additional ground relating to claim under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of salary and postage expenses ?'2. During the assessment year 1997-98 (sic), the assessee-respondent made a claim for weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), in respect of the expenses incurred during the previous year wholly and exclusively for promotion of sale outside India of the goods, services or facilities. He has claimed deductions in respect of travelling expenses incurred o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Raj)143
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. At the instance of the Commissioner under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, Bench, Jaipur has referred the following question of law which arose out of its order in ITA No. 951/Jp/1985 relating to assessment year 1977-78 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) that the entire income of the assessee is exempt under section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act'.3. It has been stated by both the learned counsel that identical question raised in the case of very same assessee was subject-matter of IT Ref. No. 20 of 1988 which has been decided by this court on 17-4-2001 (reported as CIT v. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (2001) 168 CTR (Raj) 6121, and the question has been answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Following the aforesaid decision, the question referred ab...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Agarwal Flooring Stone Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)239
Rajesh Balia, J.The Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the Commissioner Jaipur, has referred the following question of law arising out of ITA No. 719/Jp/1988 relating to the assessment year 1985-86 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the addition of Rs. 37,826 made under section 43B with the direction that if the amount of sales-tax is paid within the time allowed under the sales-tax law, although after the close of the year, it shall be allowed as deduction ?'2. The facts relevant for determining the aforesaid question are that the assessee has claimed deduction on account of the liability to pay sales-tax amounting to Rs. 37,826 which had not been actually paid during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question. The assessee has claimed that as per the relevant sales-tax law, the assessee has incurred the liability for the previous year and the payment of said sum was als...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Gokuldass and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)394; 2002(1)WLC324
Rajesh Balia, J.At the instance of the Commissioner, Jaipur, the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law arising out of its appellate order dated 29-7-1980, passed in ITA No. 1011/Jp/79 for the assessment year 1997-98 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to entertain the additional ground relating to claim under section 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of salary and postage expenses?'2. During the assessment year 1997-98, the assessee-respondent made a claim for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of the expenses incurred during previous year wholly and exclusively for promotion of sale outside India of the goods, services or facilities. He has claimed deductions in respect of travelling expenses incurred outside India in connection with the business under section 35B of ...
Tag this Judgment!B. L. Murarka Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Raj)94
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'), rejecting the application made by the assessee- applicant for stating the case and referring the following questions said to be of law and arising out of Tribunal's order passed in ITA No. 1408/Jp/80, dated 18-5-1983 :1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was any material for the finding that the assessee had concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income under the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Whether it is lawful to impose penalty when even after additions by the department there was still no taxable income and assessee not liable to pay any tax.3. Whether it is lawful for the Third Member of the Tribunal to agree to imposition of penalty while holding the view that when assessee's explanation is read as a whole an inference cannot be dra...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Lal Sankhla Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN171
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner is L.D.C. working with the respondent No. 3 bank. An F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner on 6.5.1999 regarding the amount which was received vide receipt No. 2282 to 2300 and receipt No. 19059 of Bank No. 23. The allegation against him is that by collecting amount from poor members of the Bank, he mis-appropriated amount of Rs. 5,81,356/- in all. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against him before the competent criminal court. According to the petitioner, the evidence of the prosecution is being recorded before the competent criminal court.2. It is the case of the petitioner that for the same charges which are levelled against him in the criminal court, the respondent Bank started the departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules') notice of demand of justice was served by the petitioner to the respondent bank through his lawyer on 26.12.1...
Tag this Judgment!Mahipal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC132; 2002(1)WLN214
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By this petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. accused petitioner challenged the order dated 4.4.2001 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, in Sessions Case No. 36/99 whereby the application filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for summoning the Tehsildar, Pokaran as prosecution witness was allowed and Tehsildar Pokaran was summoned as prosecution witness.2. Briefly stated the facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are that the accused petitioner is facing trial before the learned Trial Court for the offence Under Sections 302, 394, 323/34 and 324 I.P.C.3. After investigation police laid challan against the petitioner and prosecution examined prosecution witnesses. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.2.1999 injured Murli Manohar was admitted to Pokaran Hospital and his statement was recorded by the Tehsildar, Pokaran. Subsequently, injured Murli Manohar succumbed to injuries sustained on 14.2.1999 in the hands of t...
Tag this Judgment!Gordhan Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN621
Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment and order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 7.11.2000 (Annex.9), by which the revision filed by respondent No. 4 has been allowed and the variation of conditions of permit in favour of petitioners has been quashed.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners are the stage carriage permit-holders on Pillibanga Mandi to Manewallah intra-regional route falling under the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (for short, 'the R.T.A.'). The said route runs in 52 Km. in length and altogether 10 permits had been granted on the said route. Petitioners applied for variation of condilions of their permit under the provisions of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') to curtail the porlion between 24 PBN to Rajasthan Canal and for inclusion of Prempura, 24 PBN, 1 LLP, 3 LNP to Rajasthan Canal. The R.T.A., Bikaner c...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bharosi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC252; 2002(1)WLN402
Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.10.99 passed by the Special Judge NDPS Act Cases and Sessions Judge, Dholpur, by which he has convicted accused appellant Ram Bharosi for offence Under Section 8/18 and 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment on each count and to pay of fine of Rs. one lac each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two years rigorous imprisonment each.2. The prosecution story unfolded during trial was that on 15.8.98 PW. 11 Sarad Choudhary, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Dhotpur received telephonic information from the S.H.O., Police Station, Kotwali that one Ram Bharosi by caste Goswami, R/o Donari is taking with him opium and Charas on a Rajdoot motor cycle, having no registration number on it, for the purposes of selling the same to a drugs' contractor, which he recorded in Ex.P-17 and telephonically informed the Superintendent of Police....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »