Rajasthan Court February 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.
Cit Vs. L.M.B. Hotel
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN477(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 question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the hotel building used by the assessee was a 'plant' and depreciation was admissible treating the hotel building as a 'plant'?'2. At the outset the learned counsel for the assessee Mr. Mehta, the learned Advocate General admits that the issue has now been concluded by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Anand Theatres : [2000]244ITR192(SC) wherein their Lordships held that theatre and hotel buildings specially equipped for purpose of business are not entitled for the depreciation as they are not plant within the meaning of section 43(3) of the Act.3. Following the view taken by their Lordships, we answer the question in negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the ass...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Mahavir Rubber Works
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Raj)90
By The Court.On an application filed under section 256(1) of the IT, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that since the relief under section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the new industrial undertaking had been allowed to the assessee in the initial assessment year, the Income Tax Officer was not entitled to refuse the same relief in respect of that undertaking in the subsequent assessment year unless the relief allowed for the initial year is withdrawn by the Income Tax Officer ?'2. The assessee derives income from manufacture and sale of plastic and rubber goods. Relevant assessment year is 1979-80. Year ended on 31-12-1978. The income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 20,411. The benefit of section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been denied to the assessee on the ground that assessee has not fulfilled the condit...
Cit Vs. Bagpatia Food Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Raj)173
By the courtOn an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not have been invoked in this case ?'2. The assessee was engaged in the activities of oil production work though oil expellers and was allowed development rebate at the rate of 25 per cent. Learned Income Tax Officer being of the view that in terms of item No. 31 of the 5th Schedule to Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is entitled for development rebate at the rate of 15 per cent. Income Tax Officer therefore, issued notice under section 154 of the Income Tax Act and the order was passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allowing the development rebate at the rate of 15 per cent instead of 25 per cent.3. None appeared for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the reve...
Jalu Ram and anr. Vs. Bhanwar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN341
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 19.2.1999 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 93/1996, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,16,000/- as compensation in favour of appellant-claimants, parents of deceased Jai Ram.2. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by quantum of compensation assessed and awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant-claimants filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the award.3. In this appeal the short point involved is what should be proper compensation in case of death of a young person of 20 years of age. On 29.4.1994-, deceased Jai Ram, who was a labourer, was going on a tractor, which met with an accident. Due to this accident, Jai Ram received injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. He was 20 years of age and used to earn Rs. 2,000/- per month by working as labourer the parents of the deceased i.e. father and mother are...
Manohari Lal Vs. Suraj Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN110
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the memo of revision petition and the impugned order.2. Learned counsel for the defendant-respondent Mr. J.P. Goyal raises preliminary objection re-maintainability of revision petition. His submission is that the impugned order is appealable. Under the impugned order the application filed by plaintiff for setting aside the abatement of the suit has been dismissed and against that order appeal lies before the District Judge. The reference has been made in support of his contention to Order 43 Rule 1, CPC.3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner in contra submitted that under the impugned order the application filed by plaintiff-petitioner under Order 22 Rules 4 & 9 CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been decided and that order is not appealable and the remedy is only of filing the revision petition.4. To appreciate the rival contentions of learned counsel for parties and to decide the point re-mainta...
Prabhu Dayal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC427
Sharma, J.1. The petitioner was suspended from the post of Chairman/Vice Chairman/Member Municipal Board Dausa on the allegation that number of his children exceeded and he acquired dis-qualification under Section 26 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (in short, '1959 Act') vide order dated Jan. 8, 2002. As a consequence thereof another order came to be passed on January 8, 2002 whereby Smt. Biban Bano was directed to take charge of the post of Chairman, Municipal Board Dausa. The petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks to quash the aforequoted orders.2. According to the facts averred in the writ petition the elections of Municipal Board Dausa were held on August 20, 2000. The petitioner contested the election from Ward No. 10 and was declared elected. Thereafter, the petitioner was elected as Vice Chairman of the Municipal Board Dausa. The election of the petitioner from Ward No. 10 was challenged by one Laxmi Narain by filing election petition under Section 34 of the 195...
Rameshwar Lal Mali Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR536(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is preferred by the assessee against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, dated March 3, 2000, with respect to the assessment year 1993-94.2. The appellant-assessee is running a shop in the name of Kishan Mishthan Bhandar engaged in manufacture and sale of sweets and namkeen. A survey was undertaken under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act of the shop as well as the factory premises by the income-tax authorities on December 5, 1995.The books of account of the appellant were impounded in accordance with the provisions of Section 131 of the Income-tax Act. The Sales Tax Department also conducted a survey independently at the premises of the assessee on February 15, 1995. The assessing authority observed a number of defects in the books of account maintained by the appellant such as non-maintenance of stock register, purchase and sales were not fully vouched, lumpsum payments were made...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Govind Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR208(Raj)
1. 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 Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 30,183 incurred by the assessee for development of land was a revenue nature and not of a capital nature and was therefore allowable ?'2. The Income-tax Officer has disallowed Rs. 30,183 out of the aforesaid expenses on the ground that the expenses to that extent were not incidental to the activities carried on by the assessee. In appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has treated this amount as a capital expenditure, In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred in developing the land, laying down pipe lines, dividing the land into small plots were required to be incurred for the purpose of carrying on the business of se...
Badrilal and anr. Vs. Sunil and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj30; 2002(3)WLN511; 2002(3)WLN511
Panwar, J.1. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals No. 572/94, 598/94, 668/94 and S.B. Civil Revision No. 1224/94 arise out of same suit and between the same parties and involve common questions of law and facts and, therefore, for convenience they are decided jointly.2. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 572/94 is directed against the order dated 24.10.94 passed by District Judge, Udaipur on an application filed by the respondents under Section 15 C.P.C. read with Sections 10 and 49 of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby the trial court allowed the application filed by the respondent-defendants and directed the suit to be returned to the plaintiff-appellants for presentation to a proper court on the ground that the suit was not properly valued.3. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 598/94 is also directed against the order dated 24.10.94 whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff-appellants seeking temporary injunction ...
Ramakant Saraf Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj106; 2002(3)WLC180; 2002(2)WLN656
Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dated 24.9.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in criminal case No. 432/96 whereby the learned Magistrate allowed the application dated 9.7.2001 filed by the APP and ordered that the case be tried as warrant case and he further ordered that PW- 1 Ramgopal be summoned for further cross-examination.2. It arises in the following circumstances :(i) That a complaint under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954) was filed in the lower court on 30.5.95 and on that day, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused petitioner. It appears that procedure of warrant trial otherwise than on a police report was adopted by the Magistrate and for that pre-charges evidence was recorded and statement of PW.1 Ramgopal was recorded on 1 i .8.98 and thereafter the case was fixed for argument on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »