Rajasthan Court January 2002 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suneel Textiles Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Raj)39
1. By this application filed under Section 256(2) of the income-tax, Revenue prays that Tribunal be directed to refer the following questions for the opinion of this Court :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that subsidy of Rs. 1,57,000 received by the assessee from Central Government was not to be reduced from the cost of the assets for the purpose of depreciation allowance ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that subsidy of Rs. 1,57,000 received by the assessee from Central Government was not to be reduced from the cost of the assets for the purpose of computing rebate under Section 80J ?2. The issue before us for consideration is as to whether the subsidy should be reduced from the actual cost as defined under Section 43(1) of the Act or not This issue has already been concluded by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd : [1994]210ITR83...
Brij Lal Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(NULL)374
ORDERB.L. Khatri, A.M.This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1993-94. The assessee has, in all, agitated on 12 grounds. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are regarding the rejection of trading account of iron and addition of Rs. 7,062 by the assessing officer. Ground Nos. 4 to and 10 are regarding enhancement of income of the assessee by Rs. 1,70,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. On scrutiny of iron account, the assessing officer noticed that the purchases are fully vouched but the sales were partly vouched. In iron a/c the assessee had shown gross profit rate of 3.58 per cent, whereas in the immediately preceding assessment year the gross profit rate of 4.10 per cent was disclosed. On being asked for the reasons of low gross profit rate the assessee explained before the assessing officer that the sales are completely vouched and stock inventory has been kept, and as such the declared results be accepted. The assessing officer observed th...
Raju Vs. Nand Kishore and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC9; 2004ACJ379; 2002(5)WLC25
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Raju for enhancement of the amount of compensation on account of personal injury suffered by him, as a result of which his right leg below the knee has been amputated. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kota, has been pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 2,01,000 only to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of payment and in the event of failure to make the payment within three months, the appellant has been held entitled to interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. The Tribunal has further chalked out an arrangement regarding the disbursement of this amount by directing that out of the total compensation amount, Rs. 20,000 shall be deposited in a savings bank account in a nationalised bank and the remaining amount along with the interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of thirty y...
Pema Ram and anr. Vs. Rajendra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC526; 2002(3)WLN375
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. These review petitions have been moved questioning the directions issued by Division Bench in four Special Appeals by a common judgment dated 16.11.1998, whereby candidates who were selected from reserve list for giving appointment on the post of Junior Accountant in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, were directed to be excluded for consideration in giving appointments to fill up 41 vacancies on the basis of merit, in State Service.2. Facts in brief are, that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement for filling up of 500 vacancies of the post of Junior Accountant under the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963. Later on, number of vacancies were increased to 600. In pursuance of the examination held, the Public Service Commission prepared a select list of 600 candidates for giving appointment by direct recruitment in the order of merit of candidates. The Public Service Commission also prepared a reserve list of 50% of the adv...
Cit Vs. Suneel Textile Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN822(Raj)
ORDERBy this application filed under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, revenue prays that Tribunal be directed to refer the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that subsidy of Rs. 1,57,000 received by the assessee from Central Government was not to be reduced from the cost of the assets for the purpose of depreciation allowance 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that subsidy of Rs. 1,57,000 received by the assessee from Central Government was not to be reduced from the cost of the assets for the purpose of computing rebate under section 80J 2. The issue before us for consideration is as to whether the subsidy should be reduced from the actual cost as defined under section 43(1) of the Act or not This issue has already been concluded by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. : [1994]210ITR830(SC...
Shri Parswanath Granite Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Raj)81
BY THE COURTThis reference application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act is at the instance of the assessee Shri Parshwanath Granite Industries (P) Ltd. The assessee is a private limited company, engaged in the business of manufacturing granite slabs out of granite stone blocks and purchase and sale thereof. The assessing officer while completing the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1988-89, disallowed cash credit of Rs. 43,000 in the name of Miss Pramila and Rs. 17,000 in the name of Mr. Suresh Kumar Golecha. The assessing officer examined Miss Pramila, the daughter of managing director of the company. She pleaded complete ignorance about the deposit in her bank account as well as the credit advanced to the assessee. The assessee requested for the cross-examination of Miss Pramila. The summonses were issued to her under section 131 of the Income Tax Act. In spite of repeated opportunities given, Miss Pramila did not appear. It goes without saying that it was the...
C.W.T. Vs. Pushpa Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN675
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Heard Mr. L.M. Lodha, learned Counsel for the department and Mr. Mahendra Trivedi, learned Counsel for the assessee.2. It is submitted by both the learned Counsel for the respective parties that question of law involved in this group of reference applications stand answered by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 26.2.2001 rendered in D.B. Wealth Tax Reference Application Np. 103/1995 C.W.T. v. Smt. Sita Devi and D.B. Wealth Tax Reference Application No. 106/1995 C.W.T. v. Mohanlal.3. All the reference applications stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment dated 26.2.2001....
Dharmi Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN728
D.N. Joshi, J.1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated 28.10.1995 passed in Criminal Sessions Case No. 180/93, by which the application filed by the petitioner dated 22nd March, 1995 for supply of certain documents and statements filed with the charge-sheet was rejected.2. Heard Mr. Sunil Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.D. Kalla, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.3. The petitioners wanted the supply of following documents:(1) photo stat copies of the letters, which were produced by the petitioners during investigation (though, the originals are with them) to show that the letters are not after-thought.(2) the letters written to Forensic Science Laboratory for removing the defects pointed out by the laboratory.(3) the letters written to the witnesses by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Gulabpura in case of non-turning of the witnesses despite t...
Sahdeo Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN619
D.N. Joshi, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petition has been filed against the revisional order dated 24.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bikaner in criminal revision No. 70/2000, whereby the he upheld the order dated 31.10.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lunkaransar in connection with F.I.R. No. 95/2001 of the Police Station, Mahajan refusing to release the petitioner's jeep No. RJ-21-C-3812.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that under Section 69(e) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, the jeep was not liable to confiscation. As per his argument, the jeep was not carrying such receptacle or package in respect of which offence under the Excise Act has been committed. As per allegations of the prosecution, so called jeep was escorting the truck, in which the so called illicit liquor was being carried. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that under newly inserted Section 54-A of the Act, the owner s...
Tulsi Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2003WLC(Raj)UC8; 2002(3)WLN55
D.N. Joshi, J.1. This petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order of taking cognizance against the petitioners Under Section 3/4 ,of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 (in short 'the Ordinance' hereinafter) on a complaint filed by S.H.O. Police Station, Sadar Bazar, Jodhpur.2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners are employed in Richirich Video Parlour situated at shop No. 123 Nai Sadak, Jodhpur owned and operated by one Shri Umesh Vyas, who is the proprietor of the said Video Parlour. The owner of the said Video Parlour is carrying on the business of Video Games for providing entertainment to the persons who are desirous to play the game. It has further averred in the petition that games mentioned in para No. 3 are the games exhibited on the electronic video games machine and the games are open for the general public at large for the purpose of amusement and entertainment of the persons whosoever is desirous to visit an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »