Rajasthan Court January 2002 Judgments
Shantilal Vs. Mahendra Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN461
Mathur, J.1. These two appeals, Which arise from the same suit between the parties, are disposed-of by common judgment. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 9A/1998 is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19th November, 1987 confirming the preliminary decree dated 25.4.1973 in a partition suit passed by the Civil Judge, Udaipur with the modification that the entire property mentioned at item Nos. 1 to 7 in Schedule 'Ka' annexed with the plaint is liable to be partitioned instead of only property mentioned at item Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Schedule. Another Appeal being S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 126/1990 is against the second preliminary decree dated 11.7.1990 passed by the Additional District Judge, Udaipur in Civil Suit No. 28/1966.2. In order to understand and relationship of the contesting parties, it would be apposite to give pedigree of the family, which is given below: Hamirji | Bhimraj | Chunilal Handawat(died on 25.12.65) __________________________________...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Tiwari Vs. General Manager, I.O.C.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC423; 2002(5)WLN168
Sharma, J.1. As per the facts averred in the writ petition the Indian Oil Corporation (for short IOC) granted dealership for Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) atAchrol to the petitioner. On September 11, 2001 when the inspection of the outlet was conducted it was found in perfect order put Shri Sanjay Bhandari Assistant Manager (Sales) IOC on October 14, 2001 suddenly appeared at the outlet and demanded money from the attendant and oh his refusal communicated false report. Thereafter another inspection was conducted on October 15, 2001 and the punishment of closure of Retail outlet was imposed on the petitioner. Being aggrieved by this action the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court seeking quashing of the order/communication of the IOC dated October 15, 2001 and November 2, 2001 and prayed to allow him to operate the Retail Outlet.2. The grounds for challenging the action of the respondents are that the respondent IOC has ignored the Marketing Discipline Guide...
Tag this Judgment!Manager, Jai Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR931]
Madan, J.1. The case of the petitioner (for short 'the Company') is that it has a bottling plant for bottling soft drinks at Jaipur. Non-petitioner No. 2 was in the employment of the Company's bottling plant as waterman, who was the only employee of the Company in this category. The Company has been bottling soft drinks under its franchisee agreement with Pepsi Foods Private Limited, which was terminated by Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 3.12.1991. Despite stoppage of the production, the Company continued respondent No. 2 in its employment in the hope and expectation of revival of production activities but since the financial conditions of the company didn't improve, it had become difficult for the Company to continue respondent No. 2 in its employment as it had become difficult for it to pay him wages without work. Hence, it was decided to retrench him after having resorted to the provisions of Section 2(oo) and Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the A...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Stones and Mineral Associated Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR479(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of the court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenses of Rs. 23,698 incurred by the assessee in procurement of materials for exports, though no materials were actually procured and no export was actually done, could be allowed as a revenue expenditure, though such expenses have been incurred very much after the company has come into existence ?'2. The assessee-company was set up for the purpose of export of granite, bricks, chips and monumental stones out of India. The relevant assessment year is 1978-79. The assessee has procured certain orders for export and also placed orders for procurement of material for the purpose of export. In export, before actual export, licence is obtained for export. In the present case, the assessee has claimed a loss of Rs. 23,698 as preliminary expenses for setting up of the busi...
Tag this Judgment!Brigadier Narula Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR751(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court: 'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in its interpretation of the proviso (ii) to Section 16(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thereby holding that the assessee is entitled to a standard deduction at Rs. 1,000 only and not at Rs. 2,500 as allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ?' 'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that providing the car in terms of the instruction dated November 20, 1964, amounts to a perquisiteunder Section 17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in sustaining an addition at Rs. 2,400 in the hands of the assessee ?' 2. The assessee, an individual, was a managing director of a public sector undertaking, namely, Instrumentation Ltd. The assessee declared an income of Rs. 30,207 that has been determined at Rs. 30,992. During the course of assessment it came to the notice of the Assessing...
Tag this Judgment!Dhadda and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR739(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of the court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim the amount in question as deduction on account of difference in the exchange rate by devaluation on December 22, 1981, which was about two months after the close of the accounting year ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1982-83. The assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 1,05,329 on account of difference in the exchange rate in trade in rough emerald account. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting and actually the payment has been made on December 22, 1981, which did not fall in the relevant accounting year and that the loss suffered on account of difference in the exchange rate also comes after the close ...
Tag this Judgment!Shankera Ram Vs. Munnalal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj670
Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.4.99 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the trial court') whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by plaintiff appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. Hence, this appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decisionof this appeal are that a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 17.8.98 wasfiled by the plaintiff appellant before the trial court on 24.8.98 within seven days fromthe date of the alleged agreement against defendant respondents. The agreement isunregistered and execution of it has been denied by the respondents. Respondentsalso denied in their reply to the application filed by the plaintiff appellant regardingpossession of the land having been given to the plaintiff appellant. Prima facie, havingconsidered the material placed by the parties before the trial court, the trial cour...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Zenith Commercial Agencies (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN486(Raj)
ORDERAt the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that the identical issue has been considered by this court in the case of this very assessee in the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 and application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was rejected.2. Following our view in the case of this very assessee in CIT v. Zenith Commercial Agencies (P) Ltd. (1998) 6 DTC 117 (Raj-HC) : (1998) 144 Taxation 488 (Raj), no case is made out for notice. Consequently, application under section 256(2) is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN643(Raj)
ORDEROn an application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred by the assessee on the preparation of the income-tax returns is an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee and so is allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the messing expenses and/or the expenses on tea and coffee, etc., incurred by the assessee in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1978-79 in respect of its customers are/is an expenditure in the nature of entertainment expenditure within the meaning of section 37(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1978-79 for which the previous year ended on 30-9-1977. In the year un...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Singh Garg
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR131(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made under Section 43B notwithstanding the fact that the assessee did not make the payment of outstanding sales tax liability during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1987-88 ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm and had claimed liability on account of sales tax amounting to Rs. 85,788, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the payment was made after the close of the accounting year. The relevant assessment year is 1987-88. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has upheld this disallowance. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee following the decision reported in CIT v. Bimal Mrishna Sil and Bros. Mr. Gargia,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »