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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vimal Chand Golecha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: [2004]269ITR52(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 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 right in holding that the loan accounts of the minors in the books of the firm, M/s. Ratnalaya, will not lose its character and will not partake of the character of capital account by virtue of the fact that the share incomes of the minors were credited to their loan account ?'2. The partnership firm styled as M/s. Ratnalaya started vide partnership deed dated July 31, 1968, and it was constituted by the two major partners, namely, Smt. Kanchan Devi Golecha and Shri Satish Chandra Bothra. Two minors, Master Pankaj Kumar and Peeyush Kumar, were admitted in the partnership to the benefits of the partnership. These minors are sons of the assessee. Shri Peeyush Kumar Golecha, according to the assessee, deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000 on October 15, 1968, and a s...
Cit Vs. Ashok Mahendra and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN596(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 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in setting aside the matters to the assessing officer with directions that no disallowances were to be made under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 6,570/Rs. 5,303/Rs. 24,672/Rs. 13,459 if such payments had been made on or before the due date applicable for furnishing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessees are registered firms. The Income Tax Officer found that the assessee had collected sales tax from the customers during the relevant assessment years, which were not deposited during the accounting year in question and, therefore, the claim of deduction of sales tax paid after the accounting year though during grace period has been disallowed by the assessing of...
Smt. Premlata Jalani Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Raj)532
By the CourtThis comes on application filed by the petitioner for the amendment of the writ petition. The petitioner wants to incorporate the prayer to challenge the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 2-11-2001. It is admitted by the learned counsel that an appeal has been preferred against the said order before Tribunal and the same is pending.It is submitted by the learned counsel since the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of proviso to section 234C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It has become necessary to challenge the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as well.2. In our view the amendment cannot be granted, as challenge to the order of Commissioner (Appeals) will amount to permitting to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal before the Tribunal. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel that an appeal has already been preferred and the same is pending before the Tribunal. If it is so in case the Tribunal decides the case against the petitioner. He...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kotputli Rural Electric Co-operative So ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Raj)282; [2002]255ITR563(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 Tribunal was justified in holding that the contingency reserve is a deductible amount from the total income of the assesses ?'2. The assessee has created a contingency reserve at 1/2 per cent, of the original cost of the fixed assets of Rs. 94,96,282. This, according to the assessee, was in accordance with Clause (iv) of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The reserve was invested in the manner prescribed by the Co-operative Societies Act. The assessee has claimed this amount of reserve as deduction from its profit for the purpose of taxation. The Income-tax Officer negatived this claim but Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has allowed the claim of the assessee holding that once the amount is transferred to a contingency reserve fund which is a statutory liability a...
income-tax Officer Vs. Novelty Garments
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR688(Raj)
1. In appeal under Section 260A learned counsel for the Department submits that there are two substantial questions of law, which do arise out of the order of the Tribunal, which read as under :'Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in its wisdom to hold that the filing of a certificate in Form No. 10CCAC in old format is a rectifiable mistake and on this account the benefit otherwise allowable to the assessee cannot be denied ? Whether the filing of a certificate in Form No. 10CCAC along with the return of income for claiming deduction under Section 80HHC is only a procedural mistake, or it is a necessary/mandatory requirement under the law as amended with effect from April 1, 1992 ?' 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that if the returns are filed along with the old format for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC, but if during the course of assessment, the assessee rectified the mistake and he filed the new format i...
Badri Ram Vs. Prithvi Raj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN65; 2002(3)WLN65
Tatia, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.4.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract dated 27.6.1998. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract against the defendant alleging that the defendant agreed to sell six bighas of agricultural land from his share in the joint holding land of 18 bighas and 17 biswas. The defendant executed agreement dated 27.6.98. The defendant received Rs. 2,80,000/- in pursuance of the above agreement, it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the sale-deed will be executed by 26.6.1999. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff purchased the above land by paying the market cost of the land. The defendant, after getting the above amount of Rs.2,80,000/-, did not execute sale-d...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vishnu Trading and Investment Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR724(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 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 Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, was justified in holding that capital gains, in respect of sale of property, was not attracted in the assessment year under consideration as there has been no transfer ?'2. The assessee-company which derives income from the manufacture and sale of containers had sold its factory building for consideration of Rs. 45,000 to a firm, Krishna Agencies, Jaipur, wherein the relatives of the company's directors were partners. The matter was referred to the valuer under Section 55A of the Income-tax Act, who valued the property at Rs. 1,35,000, which value was adopted as the market value for the purpose of Section 52 of the Income-tax Act after obtaining the necessary sanction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. On the basis of the...
Krishna Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ429Raj
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal arises out of a litigation which has ensued the order issued by District collector and Chairman, District Women Development Authority, Bikaner dated February 28, 1998 by which the services of petitioner-appellant were terminated on the ground that no information about the lien on the parent department has been received. The petitioners were appointed as Prachetas in pursuance of an Advertisement dated December 18, 1998 issued by Director, District Women Development Authority, Bikaner on different dates. All the petitioners had been appointed on contract basis and not on deputation. From the various orders produced with the writ petition giving appointments to different persons as Prachetas under the department shows that those incumbents who have been in the employment of the State whether in schools under control of Panchayat Samiti or otherwise or in other Government departments were given appointment on deputation...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Geeta Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ774; 2001WLC(Raj)UC217
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondents-claimants finally as a short law point is involved in this appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by claimants due to the death of Buddharam in accident. The Tribunal while deciding issue No. 3 held that the appellant insurance company is not liable for the payment because of the fact that conditions of policy of the insurance was violated by the non-applicant No. 2, Mangla Ram, who was the holder of the policy, but at the same time, the Tribunal directed that the insurance company shall make the payment of the amount of the award and the appellant insurance company shall be entitled to recover this amount from the non-applicant No. 2, Mangla Ram. According to the learned Counsel for appellant, when the Tribunal held that insurance company is not liable for the payment and as there is a clear violation of the terms of the policy then the Tribunal has committed a serious il...
ito Vs. Novelty Garments
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Raj)306
By the CourtIn appeal under section 260A learned counsel for the department submits that there are two substantial questions of law, which do arise out of the order of Tribunal, which read as under :'Whether the learned Tribunal was right in its wisdom to hold that the filing of certificate in Form No. 10CCAC in old format is a rectifiable mistake and on this account the benefit otherwise allowable to the assessee cannot be denied Whether the filing of certificate in Form No. 10CCAC along with the return of income for claiming deduction under section 80HHC is only a procedural mistake, or it is a necessary/mandatory requirement under the law as amended with effect from 1-4-1992 ?'2. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that it the returns are filled along with the old format for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHC, but if during the course of assessment, the assessee rectified the mistake and he filed the new format in Form No. 10CCAC, the bene...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »