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. Rajasthan Rajya Bunker Sahakari Sangh L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR88(Raj)
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The basic question for consideration in this appeal is whether the assessee-society is entitled for the benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(ii).2. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the marketing of the produce of members of primary society and to supply the members of primary society raw material for manufacturing through the primary society. By this activity, the assessee has shown gross profit of Rs. 46,28,915.3. The Assessing Officer has negatived the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee-society has no direct deal with the weavers, it helps the weavers through the primary society.4. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), has allowed the claim of the assessee following the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of CZT v. Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. : [19...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Girdhari Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR331(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 correct in cancelling the orders under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1977-78, 1979-80 to 1981-82 ?' 2. The assessee derives income from the business of contract and construction of roads and bridges. The assessment years involved are 1976-77 to 1981-82. The assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 148. Thereafter a notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax on December 24, 1982, to revise the assessment orders made by the Assessing Officer. For revising the assessment order, the Commissioner of Income-tax was of the view that: (a) the assessment for the assessment year 1976-77 should be made by the Income-tax Officer, Special Survey Circle, and not by the Income-ta...
Mrs. Nirmal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj270; 2002(2)WLC735
Rathore, J. 1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenged the order dated 7.5.1991 and the amendment in Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rule 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as the Service Rules 1971). 2. The petitioner initially joined the Kala Mandir, Girls Middle School, Bharatpur on 1.7.1983 on the post of Teacher. At the relevant time the school was recognized and aided by the Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner's appointment was also apprised by Senior Dy. Education Officer (Girls) Bharatpur vide his order dated 27.10.1983. The petitioner continued to work in the Kala Mandir, Bharatpur unto 19.12.1987. In response to the advertisement issued by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, New Delhi for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade 111 petitioner also applied for Teacher Grade III (Hindi). The petitioner was selected through proper channel and since the line of the petitioner on the post of teacher remained with the Kala Mandir, Bharatpur and...
Perry Bottling Company Vs. S.S. Soda and Soft Drinks Company and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC555(Raj); RLW2003(1)Raj77; 2002(3)WLC333; 2002(2)WLN593
Tatia, J. 1. This appeal is against the order dated 18.6.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 869/2001 by which the trial Court dismissed the injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff-appellant.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-M/s Perry Bottling Company filed the suit for injunction against the defendants with the prayer that the plaintiff is holder of the trade mark and the defendants are, to deceive customers, using a mark which is a copy of the registered trade mark of the plaintiff. The defendants, by using trade mark of the plaintiff, are selling product of inferior quality. According to the plaint allegations, the action of the defendants is offence under Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1958') and Sections 63, 64, 65 and 67 of the Copy Rights Act and Sections 420, 1...
Anwar HussaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj656; 2003(1)WLC149; 2002(5)WLN585
Goyal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.1.99 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 53/97 whereby the appellant Shri Anwar Hussain was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further undergo three months Simple Imprisonment.2. Briefly, narrated the prosecution story is that on 13.10.97 at 3 p.m. PW.1 Mohammed Muslim lodged a written report Ex.P.1 at Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur with the averments that his cousin brother Shri Mohammed Aziz (since deceased) was living with him in Balaji Ki Kothi. A sum of Rs. 23,000/- as price of precious stones was due against Anwar Hussain. Mohammed Aziz demanded his money on various occasions and on such demand one month earlier, Anwar Hussain being annoyed threatened to kill -Mohammed Aziz. At about 1.45 p.m. on 13.10.97, Mohammed Aziz alongwith Mohammed Muslim-informant and Manjoor Ali PW.9 ...
Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Raj)206
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the IT 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 deleting the disallowance of Rs. 83,662 representing the gratuity claim of the assessee only to the extent of Rs. 38,688 ?' 2. The assessee has declared an income of Rs. 72,990. The relevant assessment year is 1974-75. During the course of assessment, AO has noticed that assessee has made the provision on account of the gratuity liability and claimed deduction of Rs. 83,662. The AO further noticed that the assessee's liability for gratuity on the basis of actuarial valuation certificate as on 31st Dec., 1973, and 31st Dec., 1972, was Rs. 2,65,850 and Rs. 1,82,155 respectively. The difference of that amount comes to Rs. 83,662 that was the provision to be made in this year. The provision for gratuity liability up to the asst. yr. 1975-76 came out of Rs. 3,51,90...
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and anr. Vs. Super Syncotex (India) Ltd ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1161; [2003]130STC186(Raj); 2002(5)WLN363
1.These three writ petitions raise a common question about the interpretation of term 'expansion' and the conditions to be fulfilled by the applicants thereunder for seeking benefits under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987 or the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme, 1989.2. All the three applicants-respondents in the aforesaid petitions had applied for the sanction for issuing eligibility certificate before the State Level Screening Committee in respect of their expansions carried on by them in the respective existing industrial units engaged in the manufacture of yarn.3. M/s. H.E.G. Ltd. has applied for the benefit under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Deferment Scheme, 1987 (Deferment Scheme 1987) whereas M/s. Reliance Chemotax Industries Ltd., has sought the benefit under the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Deferment Scheme, 1989 (for short, 'New Deferment Scheme'), M/s. Super Syncotex (India) Ltd., has sought the benefit under the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme, 1989 (f...
Cwt Vs. Om Prakash Khandaka
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN82(Raj)
ORDERHeard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we direct the Tribunal to refer 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 the assessee is an industrial undertaking for the purpose of deduction under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth Tax Act ?'The question be referred alongwith the statement of case within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order....
Cit Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Bunker Sahakari Sangh Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN135(Raj)
ORDERThis appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Tribunal. The basic question for consideration in this appeal is whether the assessee-society is entitled for benefit of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(ii).2. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the marketing of the produce of members of primary society and to supply the members of primary society raw material for manufacturing through primary society. By this activity assessee has shown gross profit of Rs. 46,28,915.3. The assessing officer has negatived the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee-society has no direct dealing with the weavers, but it helps the weavers through primary society.4. In appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the claim of the assessee following the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. : [1992]193ITR624(Ker) .5. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Trib...
Purshottam Vs. Hasan Ali and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ701
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. An amount of Rs. 74,000 (rupees seventy-four thousand) only has been awarded to the claimant-appellant on account of injury sustained by him on his right leg due to the accident caused by the bus owned by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'R.S.R.T.C.'). The factum of accident is not under challenge either at the instance of the R.S.R.T.C. or any other party.2. The only ground of challenge to the impugned award is that although the appellant was aged 16 years only at the time of accident his right leg is shortened by 1 3/4 inches due to which he is neither able to stand straight nor sit normally and obviously there is impairment in his ability to walk properly. The Tribunal although computed the amount after taking into consideration the medical expenses incurred which was only Rs. 2,980.85 (rupees two thousand nine hundred eighty and paise eighty-five), it has been increased to Rs. 4,000 (rupees four thousand) by the Tribunal on an overall...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »