Rajasthan Court January 2002 Judgments
Brigadier Narula Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN108(Raj)
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 :"1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in its interpretation of proviso (ii) to section 16(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereby holding that the assessee is entitled to standard deduction at Rs. 1,000 only and not at Rs. 2,500 as allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) ?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that providing the car in terms of the instruction dated 20-11-1964 amounts to a perquisite under section 17 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in sustaining 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 income of Rs. 30,207 that has been determined at Rs. 30,992. During the course of the assessment, it came to the notice of the assessing officer that the employer has pr...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Ram Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Raj)170
By the courtOn an application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 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 loose of the accounting year. The relevant assessment year is 1987-88. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld this disallowance. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee following the decision CIT v. Bimal Mrishna Sil & Bros . Mr. Gargia, learned counsel for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sonu Vyas
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR111(Raj)
On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy the said penalty on March 20, 1978 ?'The relevant assessment year is 1972-73. The assessment was completed on February 10, 1976, on total income of Rs. 87,424 as against returned income of Rs. 35,214. The Income-tax Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) on the same day, viz., February 10, 1976. As the minimum penalty leviable exceeded Rs. 25,000, the matter was referred to the concerned Inspecting Assistant Commissioner before April 1, 1976. Sub-section (2) of Section 274 has been omitted with effect from April 1, 1976. Thereafter the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to levy t...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Vs. the Mact Kishangarhbas and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ58; 2002(3)WLC57; 2002(4)WLN714
Sharma, J.1. Initially claimant impleaded petitioner insurance company as respondent in the claim petition but from subsequently on the oral request of claimant's counsel the name of the petitioner company was deleted. An award thereafter came to be passed against the vehicle owner and the driver. The claimant sought execution of the award by filing execution petition. In the execution proceedings the vehicle owner made an application under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short the M.V. Act) to declare the petitioner insurance company as judgment debtor. Learned tribunal allowed the application vide order dated March 8, 2000 declaring the petitioner Company liable as judgment debtor. Against this order of the tribunal that the petitioner company has filed the instant writ petition.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner company canvassed that the insurer cannot be saddled with the liability of claim granted by the Tribunal, where the insurer was not impleaded...
Tag this Judgment!Paras Mal JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLN188
Naolekar, J.1. The question involved in all above mentioned writ petitions is analogous and, therefore, they are heard and being decided together by this common order.2. Facts, in brief, relevant for adjudication of the question involved in the writ petitions are that vide advertisement No.2/Pariksha 'Rajya-Adhi/98-99 dated 10.5.1999 the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the RPSC) invited applications for filling up the posts of Rajasthan State Subordinate Services for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 under the Rajasthan state and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 (for short 'the Rules of 1999'). pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement the petitioners submitted their applications as general category candidates and appeared in three tier examination scheme i,e. Preliminary. Mains and Viva-Voce examination.3. After successfully clearing all the three stages of examination in the final result, the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Raj)164; [2003]259ITR341(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Ranka brought to our notice the facts from the record that the statutory bonus to the tune of Rs. 21,77,807 was claimed by the assessee even before the Assessing Officer. Mr. Ranka further submits that in fact Rs. 43,37,666 includes the bonus amount figure of Rs. 21,77,807 and that was disallowed. Even the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not considered the submissions and disallowed the appeal on the ground that the assessee could not explain the claim regarding bonus amount, so it is a case of the Tribunal.2. In the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee before the Tribunal, the assessee has categorically pointed out these facts and after considering the submissions, the Tribunal held that the bonus amount as statutory bonus is allowable and if that has not been allowed, that is an apparent mistake on record and that can be corrected tinder Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The facts are that the claim was made ...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shrafat and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj606
Panwar, J.-1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 18.3.1995 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 906/1992, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 24,000/- as compensation in favour of claimant-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') and against respondents No. 2 and 3, owner and driver of the vehicle and appellant the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurer'). The appellant insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured owner of the vehicle. Being aggrieved by the award impugned, the appellant insurer has filed this appeal.2. Briefly stated facts of the case, which are necessary for decision of this appeal are that claimant Sharafat, aged about 5 years, sustained injuries due to an accident caused by truck No. RRE 3066 on 17 5.1992, at about 5.00 pm., while he was walking by the side of the road. The said vehicle was driven rashly and negli...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC701
A.C. Goyal, J.1. The appellant Rajendra has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 28.10.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No 57/1999, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A, I.P.C. with one year's rigorous imprisonment and under Section 302, I.P.C. with imprisonment for life and with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment.2. The incident in question which gave rise to the present prosecution occurred on May 24 at about 3 or 4 p.m. in Sawai Madhopur. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W. 15 Shri Manvendra Singh, SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur received a written report Ex. P9 from General Hospital, Sawai Madhopur at about 6.20 p.m. on 24.5.1999 to the effect that one woman Smt. Vimala w/o Shri Rajendra, aged 32 years, resident of Sawai Madhopur, has been admitted in a serious burnt condition. Upon instructions of SHO, P.W. 17 Shri Sachendra...
Tag this Judgment!Uit, Jodhpur Vs. Innocent and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC434; 2002(3)WLN517
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.FACTS ABOUT CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO. 91/2001This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal No. 39/95 dated 5.12.2000.2. The first appeal filed by the present appellant UIT, Jodhpur was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jodhpur who affirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court namely the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jodhpur dated 7.3.1995.3. A civil suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 to 6 somewhere in 1990 for restraining the UIT, Jodhpur from interfering with the land comprised in Khasra No. 771 measuring 54.4 bighas. According to the claim of the plaintiffs, the land in question was sold by Dhula Parihar on 4.7.1966 to one Ved Prakash. The said Ved Prakash transferred that land in favour of Late Patric Viscent and the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 on 27.9.1966 by a ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipality Vs. Mohan Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLN558
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the memo of revision petition and the impugned order.2. With the consent of learned Counsel for parties, the following documents are taken on record:1. Office order No. 649 to 652 dated 10.1.1996 passed by Nagar Palika, Rajakhera;2. Copy of plaint of suit, out of which the revision petition arises;3. Copy of order/letter dated 19.8.1996 of the office of Dy. Director, Local Bodies, Jaipur.4. Copy of order dated 24.8.1996 of Nagar Palika, Rajakhera issued under the signature of its Chairman and Executive Officer.3. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff respondent No. 1 filed a suit for injunction, in which the prayer has been made:vr% izkFkZuk gS fd nkok oknh ds f[kykQ izfroknhx.k e; [kpkZ fMdzh fd;k tkdj izfroknhx.k dks tfjs;s LFkk;h fu'ks/kkKk os ikcUn fd;k tkos fd os oknh ds lsok;s lekIr ugh djsu mls gVk;s rFkk mls LFkk;h deZpkjh ekuk tkos Avxj nkSjku nkok ;k fdlh iwoZ vkns'k ds oknh dh lsok, lekIr dh tkos rks ml...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »