Rajasthan Court January 2002 Judgments
Shree Syntex Vs. Deputy Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(NULL)367
In the ITAT, Jodhpur Bench S.R. Chauhan, J.M. & B.L. Khatri, A.M. Income Tax Act, 1961, section 271C; In favour of : assessee (partly) and revenue (partly)Penalty under section 271CFailure to deduct tax at sourcePenalty under section 271C-Competent authority-Levy of penalty by Dy. CIT Penalty order passed by Dy. CIT on 30th July, 1991 in respect of default occurding in assessment year 1988-89-Valid in view of insertion of sub-section (2) to section 271 C w.e.L 1st April, 1990-CIT v. Onkar Saran & Sons (1992) 103 CTR (SC) 293 abundant caution such provision was made, which is evident from the fact that the provision was made under the head 'outstanding liabilities' (paper book 7 to 9). Thus, the assessee was not even sure whether the interest has to be paid or not. It was not a case where some deposits/loans were taken and there was an agreement to make payment of interest at a predetermined rate and time. Also it is notable that the revenue has not established that the assessee was 're...
Tag this Judgment!Nisha Salve Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC516; 2002(3)WLN449
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has been an aspirant for seeking employment as Teacher Gr.III in the Department of Education Rajasthan at Jila Parishad, Chittorgarh. The petitioner has cleared her Higher Secondary Certificate Examination in 1985 from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. As the papers included in that examination did not include subject Mathematics, the petitioner further undertook the examination in Mathematics conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan in 1990 and passed that examination. A certificate in that regard was also issued. Therefore, she passed the Senior Higher Secondary Examination in 1991 as a private candidate from Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. However, by ignoring the petitioner's qualification she was not considered eligible for appointment on the post of Primary Teacher under Panchayati Raj General Rules, 1996.3. The grievance of the petitioner against keeping he...
Tag this Judgment!Sama Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3134; 2002(3)WLN452
Joshi, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track). Sirohi in Sessions Case No. 63/2001 dated 12th October, 2001, whereby the application of the petitioner complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected.2. The facts of the case in brief are that a First Information Report No. 26 dated 13.3.98 was lodged at P.S. Anadara, District Sirohi alleging that the accused-non petitioner No. 2 Chhaganlal inflicted injury by Spade on the head of the petitioner. Thereafter, the case was registered, investigated and committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi under Sections 307, 325, 324 & 323 IPC. The case was then transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge and charge was framed against the accused under Section 307 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. The evidence from the prosecution side was summoned and it was closed on 19t...
Tag this Judgment!Lt. Col. P.L. Bawa Vs. Lt. Col. Bhawani Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC670; 2002(5)WLN35
Madan, J.1. P.L. Bawa (defendant) has challenged judgment & decree dated 23.2.99 in civil suit No. 249/95 passed by the Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur City for his eviction.2. Facts complexed by the parties are epitomised thus. Admittedly, Bhawani Singh & P.L. Bawa were both fellow colleagues in the military service and having good friendship, so P.L. Bawa (defendant-appellant) was appointed by Bhawani Singh as his Principal Private Secretary on 6.11.85 followed by further assignments as Financial Controller-cum-Chief Administrator of the Jaipur Palace Hotels Ltd., Managing Trustee-cum-Secretary of Shri Shiella Mala Trust & Sawai Jaipur Relief Trust. Accordingly, both of them had admittedly their relationship as employer and employee and the defendant was put in use & occupation of Kothi No. 16, Civil Lines, Jaipur (suit premises) by way of allotment.3. However, the defendant was terminated from services of Bhawani Singh on 14.6.90 directing him to hand over vacant possession o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jewels Emporium
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)464; [2002]257ITR736(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the Department. 2. In the first question, the issue pertains to whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessing Officer was bound by the direction given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his appellate order while setting aside the assessment order for fresh consideration. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is always a superior authority and he can give any direction on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the provisions of the Act. If the Assessing Officer or the assessee has any grievance, the provisions are already there in the Act to file an appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, no substantial question of law arises. 4. In the second question the issue raised is that if the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is given power for directions to the Assessing Officer, that curtails the power of the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) or 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. The issue raised is also ...
Tag this Judgment!Harlal @ Harlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj240; 2002(4)WLN125
Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 17.12.1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 5/87, by which he acquitted the accused appellant of the charges for the offence under Sections 147, 323 IPC, but convicted him for theoffence under Section 304 Part-I IPC in place of 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. By the same judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused Narain, Chatra, Naula, Surja and Ramnath of the charges for the offence under Sections 147, 323/149 and 302/149 IPC. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :- On 12.11.1986 at about 7.00 PM, a report Ex.P/6 alleged to have been written by PW-8 Sonath was presented in the Police Station Kachhola District Bhilwara by PW9 Devi Lal and in that report, it was stated that on that da...
Tag this Judgment!Subhashchandra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj292; 2002(3)WLN34; 2002(3)WLN34
Garg, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant against the order dated 11.5.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases. Bikaner is Sessions Case No. 74/2001 for the offence under Section 302 IPC by which he rejected the prayer of the APP as to re-examination of PW-2 Jetharam. 2. It arises in the following circumstances :- In the above noted sessions case, the trial was going on before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Bikaner and during trial, PW-2 Jetharam was examined on 5.5.2001 and he was also cross- examined on that day and since court time ended, therefore, the court adjourned his further cross-examination for 11.5.2001. But, when on 11.5.2001, he was being further cross-examined by the learned counsel on behalf of the accused respondents, this witness spoke in the tune of defence and started to give answer favouring to accused respondents. Therefore, when the cross-examination of PW-2 Jetharam was over, an oral prayer was made by...
Tag this Judgment!United India Ins. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Krishna Kant Choudhary
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj120; 2002(2)WLC728; 2002(2)WLN576
Tatia, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 22.7.94 passed by learned Addl. Distt. Judge No. 1, Udaipur by which learned Judge reversed the order of trial court dated 2.12.93. The trial court by order dated 2.12.93 dismissed the injunction application of the plaintiff/non-petitioner holding that there is no prima facie case and plaintiff will not suffer any irreparable injury and there is no balance of convenience in favour of plaintiff/non-petitioner The Appellate Court set aside the above order of trial court and allowed the injunction application and granted injunction order to the effect that the General Insurance Company shall obey the instruction issued for allotment of work to the surveyors bonafidely and General Insurance Company shall not treat the plaintiff/non- petitioner discriminatory. The appellate court further bound down the defendant/petitioner Companies that they should not malafidely and in contravention of rules change the panel of surveyors. The...
Tag this Judgment!Dalpat Singh Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj579
ORDERPanwar, J.1. This appeal is barred by 5391 days. The order impugned was passed by Civil Judge, Jodhpur a reference Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short 'the Ad' hereinafter) on 18.9.81. The present appealhas been filed on 23.9.96. The period of limitation for filing appeal against the order passed Under Section 18 of the Act is 90 days and the appeal has been filed after 5481 days from the date of the order impugned. Hence, it is barred by limitation of 5391 days. An application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant supported by his affidavit. The ground taken in the application for condonation of such inordinate delay is that the appellant has been discriminated in the matter of award of interest and the appellant came to know of this fact on last Deepawali. Certificate copy of the order was applied on 3.8.96 after the lapse of period of about 15 long years. However, it was made available to the appellant on the v...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Jewels Emporium
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN28(Raj)
Heard the learned counsel for the department.2. In the first question, the issue pertains to as to whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessing officer was bound by the direction given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in its appellate order while setting aside the assessment order for fresh consideration.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) is always superior authority and it can give any direction on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the provisions of the Act. If the assessing officer or assessee has any grievance, the provisions are already there in the Act to file an appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, no substantial question of law arises.4. In the second question, the issue raised is that if the Commissioner (Appeals) is given power for directions to the assessing officer, that curtails the power of the assessing officer under section 143(3) or 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').5. The issue raised is als...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »