Rajasthan Court October 2002 Judgments
The KerosIn Tel Khudra Vikreta Sangh (Union) and ors. Vs. State of Raj ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj43; 2003(2)WLC771; 2003(2)WLN172
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. All the above-mentioned writ petitions, which are ten in number, are being decided by this common order as in all of them, identical questions of law and facts are involved. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3152/2002 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-Union on 21-8-2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order Annex. 5 dated 12-8-2002 passed by the respondent No. 3 District Collector (Supplies), Bikaner by which the wholesale dealers were asked not to distribute blue kerosene to the retailers, be quashed and set aside. 3. The case of the petitioner as put forward in this writ petition is as follows :-- It may be stated here that some of the writ petitions are filed by the individuals and this writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Union of Kerosene Oil Retail Sellers, which was registered on 14th Jan. 1991 under the Indian Tra...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Mangalam Arts
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)308
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The Commissioner, Bikaner, has filed this application and requires this court to direct the Tribunal, Jaipur, Bench, Jaipur to state the case and refer the following question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order dated 29-12-1997, in ITA No. 570/Jp/1992, for the assessment year 1987-88 :'Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and having regard to clause (aa) of Explanation to section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sales made to foreign tourists at the assessee's counter located in India could be treated as export turnover?'The Tribunal relying on its earlier order has declined to refer question to this court. Hence, this application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed by the Commissioner, Bikaner.3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that no question of fact is involved. It pertains to determining ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jodhan Real Estate Development Co. P. L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR79(Raj); 2003(2)WLN515
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has made the instant reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, seeking opinion of this court on the following questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 1988, removing wealth-tax on stock-in-trade was a substantive law and hence not retrospective in operation 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in directing that the immovable properties be valued as per Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment of assessment year 1984-85 whereas the said Schedule III came into existence with effect from the assessment year 1989-90 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. Sharwan Kumar Swamp and So...
Tag this Judgment!Jatturam and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]262ITR705(Raj)
N.N. Mathur,J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right to hold that 'Amnesty Scheme' did not apply to the assessment proceedings pending under Section 147 having been initiated by the service of notice under Section 148 served on the assessee on February 27, 1986, for the assessment year 1983-84, but not in penalty proceedings and, therefore, various circulars containing Amnesty Scheme were not applicable to the assessee's case ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicability of the 'Amnesty Scheme' could be judged in the assessment proceedings including the appellate proceedings but not in penalty proceedings ?' 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Hindu undivided family (specified) deriving interest income from Jattu Ram Surender Kuma...
Tag this Judgment!Jatturam and Sons Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Raj)101
N. N. Mathur, J.The Tribunal, Jaipur, has referred 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 to hold that 'Amnesty Scheme' did not apply to assessment proceedings pending under section 147 having been initiated by the service of notice under section 148 served on the assessee on 27-2-1986, for the assessment year 1983-84, but not in penalty proceedings and, therefore, various circulars containing Amnesty Scheme were not applicable to the assessee's case2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicability of the 'Amnesty Scheme' could be judged in assessment proceedings including the appellate proceedings but not in penalty proceedings?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Hindu undivided family (specified) deriving interest income from M/s Janu Ram Surender Kumar, Srikaranpur, rental and S.O.P. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Jodhana Real Estate Development Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Raj)305
N.N. Mathur, J.The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has made the instant reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act seeking opinion of this court on the following questions.1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 1988 removing wealth-tax on stock-in-trade was a substantive law and hence not retrospective in operation2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in directing that the immovable properties be valued as per Schedule III to the Wealth Tax Act for the assessment of assessment year 1984-85 whereas the said Schedule III came into existence with effect from assessment year 1989-90?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Sawarup & Sons : 1995ECR425(SC) given in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Etc. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-03-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj63; 2003(2)WLN28
B. Prasad, J.1. These two appeals are filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). With the repeal of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, Section 18 also stands repealed. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Vasna Ram, reported in 2002 (2) WLC (Raj) 383, has taken note of this fact thus:--'This appeal has been preferred under the provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). That Ordinance provided inter-Court appeal against the judgment and order of the single Judge passed in writ petitions and also against the judgments in first appeal by the single Judge. The said Ordinance stood repealed by the Judicial Administration Laws (Repeal) Act, 2001 (Act No. 22 of 2001) which received the assent of Hon'ble the President of India on 29-8-2001 and has been published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, dated 29-8-2001....
Tag this Judgment!Sujya and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1612; 2003(3)WLC144
F.C. Bansal, J.1. The instant appeal stems from the judgment dated December 21, 1984 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tonk in Sessions Case No. 21/1984 whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :--Suyya, Ram Deva & under Section 307 or in the alter- 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-Raj Jeewan each native Under Section 307/34, IPC and in default of payment of fine to under Section 447, IPC further undergo two months R.I. 3 months rigorous Imprisonment2. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.3. The case against the appellants arose out of a written information Ex, P14 given by Nanulal S/o Nanda, by caste-Jat, R/o village Bawdi to the police station Todaraisingh to the effect that on October 10, 1983 Kishanlal spoted Sujya, Ramdeva, Ramjeewan, Mst. Mangi and Mst. Rama, who were grazing catties in their field known as Khedi Wala bearing Khasra No. 802. His brother Kishanlal dissuaded them not to graze the catties in that Beeda (uncultivate...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›