Rajasthan Court February 2002 Judgments
R.T. Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Raj252; 2002(2)WLC783
Madan, J.1. By this petition, a writ of mandamus is sought for directing the respondents:-(a) not to modify sale agreement's term dated 19.4.93 with Gouri Cements (P) Ltd. as unit sold in public auction held on 26.3.93; (b) not to allow the purchaser Gouri Cements (P) Ltd. in possession of the petitioner's unit in the event of breach of agreement term dt. 19.4.93; (c) to sell petitioner's unit by public auction in case of breach of sale agreement dt. 19.4.93 so also by affording opportunity to the petitioner to offer highest bid so as to receive back the unit; (d) to pay to the petitioner No. 1 balance of sale proceeds of the unit after adjusting his dues, alongwith interest @ 22% p.a. from 26.3.93 (auction date) till its payment of alternatively to give unconditional guarantee for such balance amount alongwith interest; (e) to submit monthly account to the petitioner No. 1 until payment of balance amount with interest. (f) to issue discharge certificate letter to the Registrar of Comp...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi Purohit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Raj)203; [2003]260ITR231(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the hotel is an industrial undertaking and, consequently, the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on furniture and electric goods installed therein ?'2. The assessee derives income from running a hotel. She claimed investment allowance under Section 32A of the Act on the furniture and electrical goods. The relevant assessment year is 1983-84. The Income-tax Officer has referred to the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the case of this very assessee, in the order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1981-82 and rejected the claim of the assessee. In appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has followed the order of the Tribunal in the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Amba Lal and anr. Vs. IkramuddIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC406; RLW2003(4)Raj2610; 2003(1)WLC104
Misra, J.1. The claimants-appellants herein are the parents of the deceased-Shankar Lal was died as a result of the accident caused by the motor vehicle which was insured with respondent No. 3-United India Assurance Company Ltd. and consequently an award of Rs. 1,26,000/- (Rs. One lac twenty six thousand) has been passed in favour of the claimants-appellants towards compensation. The claimants have come up with the case that they are a family of labourers and thence the deceased although was aged only 15 years, he was earning not less than Rs. 80 to 90 per day as the was carrying excavated soil on a mule and thus he was earning no less than Rs. 2400/- (Rs. two thousand four hundred) per months. Higher amount of compensation therefore should have been awarded for the deceased who inspite of his tender age had earning capacity of Rs. 2400/- per month.2. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 United India Assurance Company Ltd. however submitted that since the deceased was only 15 years...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Paramhans Ashram Trust
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN577(Raj)
ORDERBy the Court On an application under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (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 Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the assessee is a public charitable and religious trust and its properties are entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act ?'2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submits that identical issue has been considered by this court in the case of this very assessee that the assessee is a public charitable and religious trust, therefore, is entitled for exemption under section 5(1)(i) of the Act.3. Decision of this court has been reported in CWT v. Paramhans Ashram Trust (1995) 216 ITR 580 . The view has been taken by this court in the case of this very assessee on identical question that the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Santosh Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN25(Raj)
ORDEROn an application filed under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax 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 Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of Appellate Assistant Commissioner that in the case of residential properties, rule 1BB being procedural, would apply to assessment years 1972-73 to 1977-78, even prior to 1-4-1979 ?'2. The assessee is a partner in the firm Chandan Mal Poonam Chand, Jaipur, having 1/3rd share of profit. Return was filed after declaring net wealth at Rs. 1,60,989 showing immovable property consisting of agriculture land, plot of land and residential house so also movable assets consisting of cash in hand, capital with the firm and personal effects, silver utensils, etc. For the valuation of the properties, specially the house property, the reference was made to the Valuation Officer under section 16A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 to ascertain ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vimla Vs. Additional Collector and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLC680; 2002(4)WLN177
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. In these present writ petitions the petitioners have raised the grievance against the order passed by the Additional Collector, Churu in revision dated 7.3.2001. By the order impugned the Additional Collector has quashed the grant made in favour of the petitioners. In both these cases since the points involved are same, both the cases are being decided by a common order.2. The learned Additional Collector in his order has observed that the grant in favour of the petitioner was made by the Panchayat without charging any money for the land. These Pattas have been designed to be Pattas granted under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchavat And Landless Persons, Village Artisans And Small And Marginal Farmers Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1975').3. In the grants made to the petitioner, on the Patta it has prominently been mentioned that these grants are made in the special category. The petitioners are not falling in any of the category for wh...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Sharma Vs. K.K. Bagra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC552
Parihar, J. 1. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div) No. l, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 8.3.2000, against the respondents No. 2 and 3, alleging offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427 and 379 IPC. it has been alleged that the petitioner is running a Chit-fund company, the office of which is situated in the Shop No. 10 and Chaat Market, Ram Niwas Garden, Jaipur. It has further been alleged in the complaint that respondents No. 2 and 3, along with their emplyees, demolished the constructions of the above shops of the petitioner and also took the articles with them, thus, causing loss to the petitioner not only of the property but also of his businesses well. It has also been alleged that respondents No. 2 and 3 had not acted during the course of their official duty and the whole action was taken by the above respondents out of mala fides. 2. The police, after investigation, submitted a Final Report, however, on a Protest Petition been file...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Hume Pipes Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC618; 2003(2)WLN527
Sharma, J.1. Since the questions of law and fact involve in all these matters are common 1 propose to decide them by a common order.2. Common prayer of the petitioner company in all these matters is as under-(i) Impugned assessment orders and demand notices be quashed.(ii) It be held and declared that the petitioner is riot liable to pay any tax under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and Rules in respect of the contract undertaken by it under the various works orders.(iii) It be declared that the petitioner is entitled for grant of exemption . certificate in respect of the said words orders.(iv) It be held and declared that the contracts undertaken by the petitioner are indivisible composite work contracts and do not constitute sale.3. For the sake of convenience the facts of writ petition No. 724/2002 are taken into consideration. The petitioner company is a contractor engaged in the execution of civil construction work relating to Dams, canals etc. involving laying and commissioning of pi...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Mahaveer Financiers Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Raj)389
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the Tribunal in IT Appeal No. 972, 973, 974 and 359/Jp/1993. Assessment years involved are 1986-87 to 1989-90. The assessments for the asst. yrSection 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 were completed under Section 143(1) and thereafter notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act 1961. During the course of the reassessment proceedings, the ITO had inquired that after transfer of the plant and machinery, the lease amount received on account of transfer, whether can be treated as a business income ?On considering reply, the AO has negatived the claim of the assesses and expenditure claimed on the basis of business income, that expenses were disallowed.2. In appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) has allowed 25 per cent of the total expenditure claimed as expenditure incurred for purpose of earning the income. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has restored the matter to the AO, to examine the lease agreement vis-a-vis th...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Mahaveer Financiers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: [2003]261ITR751(Raj)
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the Tribunal in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 972, 973, 974 and 359/JP of 1993. The assessment years involved are 1986-87 to 1989-90. The assessments for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 were completed under Section 143(1) and thereafter notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, During the course of the reassessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer had inquired that after the transfer of the plant and machinery, the lease amount received on account of transfer, whether can be treated as a business income 2. On considering the reply, the Assessing Officer has negatived the claim of the assessee and expenditure claimed on the basis of business income, that expenses were disallowed.3. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has allowed 25 per cent, of the total expenditure claimed as expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning the inco...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »