Rajasthan Court April 2002 Judgments
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Venus Paints
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: [2006]143STC687(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The only question raised in this revision is whether a unit which has been found eligible for sales tax exemption under the Incentive Scheme, 1989, is still liable to pay tax on sale of packing material in which the goods manufactured by the unit is packed or contained and which has been purchased by the assessee as an exempted goods and is liable to tax in view of last proviso to Section 5(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 ?2. Both the learned counsel invited my attention to the two decisions of this Court in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Hindustan Granites (S.B. Sales Tax Revision No. 1191 of 1999, decided on January 4, 2000) reported in 23 Tax World 398 and a Bench decision in Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. v. Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal [2003] 132 STC 489 : (2000) 28 RTJS 83.3. In both the cases, it has been held that when goods are sold contained in packing material to which the incentive scheme applies and the assessee is entitled to claim exemption,...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Cit Vs. L.N. Mehta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(NULL)644
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.As the above appeals are inter-related so we are disposing them of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. WTA Nos. 195, 197, 199, 201, 203 & 205/Jp/1994 are six appeals pertaining to penalty under section 18(1)(a) of Wealth Tax Act, by revenue for assessment years 1983-84, to 1988-89, respectively and are directed against the common order of Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 13-12-1993.3. WTA Nos. 196, 198, 200, 202, 204 and 206/Jp/1994 are six appeals, pertaining a penalty under section 18(1)(c), by revenue for assessment years 1983-84 to 198889, respectively and are directed against the common order of Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 13-12-1993.4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records including the written submission of the learned authorised representative of assessee furnished on record before us.5. First we take up ITA Nos. 195, 197, 199, 201, 203 and 205/Jp/1994, pertaining to penalty und...
Tag this Judgment!Vimla Devi and anr. Vs. Majeed Mistri and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC127; 2002(4)WLC338
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties, perused the memo of appeal and the order dated 11.6.1997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Misc. Case No. 05/1994. Under this order the application filed by the claimant appellants under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC for restoration of claim petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution, has been rejected.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the claimant appellants filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur for compensation on account of death of Mr. Beni Prasad in a motor accident which occurred on 3.12.1984. The claim petition was filed by the claimant appellants in the Tribunal through Advocates Mr. R.C. Chouhan and Mr. A.K. Saxena. Later on the claimant appellants engaged Mr. Ashok Kumar Bairwa, Advocate to conduct their claim petition.3. The claimant appellants filed an application before the Tribunal and therein the prayer is made that they are...
Tag this Judgment!Yudhishter Singh Vs. Smt. Sarita
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC538; RLW2003(3)Raj1519; 2002(4)WLC351; 2002(5)WLN658
Mathur, J.1. The appellant-husband has preferred both the appeals aggrieved of the orders of the Judge, Family Court rejecting his petition for divorce, but granted decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent-wife. It appears from the record that by order dated 5-6-1995 the statement recorded in a petition filed by the husband being No. 57/92 was permitted to be read in evidence in a petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights being Case No. 37/92. Thus, there being common evidence, both the appeals are decided by common order.2. The undisputed facts are that the marriage between the appellant-Yudhishter Singh and Sarita was solemnised on 9-12-1990 at Jodhpur. After one year of the marriage, i.e. on 13-4-1992, Sarita had to file an application for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court at Jodhpur. She averred that her husband, who was posted as Junior Engineer at Village Gotan was depriving her the company. She was kept at the anc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lake Palace Hotels and Motels P. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Raj)342; [2002]258ITR562(Raj); 2002(1)WLC101
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred the following question of Jaw for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 5,30,503 incurred on old wing of the hotel building owned by the assessee was not a capital expenditure ?' 2. The assessee-company, namely, The Lake Palace Hotels and Motels P. Ltd., Udaipur, is running two hotels, namely, Lake Palace Hotel and Garden Hotel. The hotels of the company are being operated by the Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. (Taj Group). As per the agreement 50 per cent. of the net operative profit is being paid to the assessee by the said group. The assessee filed the returns for the assessment year 1984-85 declaring a loss of Rs. 10,03,560. The company was given a notice under Section 143(2). In response to the notice a detailed reply was sub...
Tag this Judgment!Golu @ Nakul Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLC217
Bansal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated February 20, 1996, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kota, whereby the appellant-Golu @ Nakul has been convicted for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that PW-1 Babulal submitted a written report Ex.P-1 at Police Station, Rampura Kotwali, Kota on October 16, 1994 at about 10:15 p.m. It was, interalia, stated in the report that today at about 10:00 p.m., he and his maternal grand-mother were sitting on the 'Chabutara', outside his house. At hat time, his brother-Shyam was coming on his Bajaj-M-80 from the side of the market with a slow speed. The appellant Nakul S/o Babulal Mehar was standing in front of his house. As soon as Shyam reached near him, the appellant-Nakul inflicted a Gandasa blow on the temple of Shyam. Shyam...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Chand Deka Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1048; 2002(3)WLC408; 2003(1)WLN207
Sharma, J.1. The appellant, a security guard, was indicated before the learned Special SC & ST (Prevention of Attrocity Cases) Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 20/95 (171/1994) for having committed murder of Head Constable Ganpat Paswan and Constable Ahmed Ali. The learned trial Judge vide judgment dated May 20, 1997 convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and sentenced him in each of the section to undergo imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer six months Rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. In the instant appeal the appellant has assailed the aforesaid finding of the learned trial Judge.2. On the Tower Posts that have been constructed all round the Central Jail Ajmer, the CRPF deploys its security guards to keep 24 hours vigil on the inmates of the Jail. On the fateful day of June 30, 1994 Head Constable Ganpat Paswan and constable Ahmed Ali, after discharging their security duties were steeping on their re...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Lal and ors. Vs. Shri Mahadev Vikash Samiti and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj178; RLW2003(1)Raj597
Panwar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.10.2001 passed by District Judge, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was allowed and the appellants were directed not to interfere with the construction of Govt. Girls School building, use and occupation of the land in dispute, education imparted by the school and were further directed not to do any act which adversely affects the rights of the respondents. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the trial Court, the defendant appellants have filed the present appeal under Order 43 Rule I C.P.C. '2. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of this appeal are that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff Respondents Shri Mahadev Vikash Samiti, Bikaner hereinafter referred to as 'the Samiti') through its Chairman trustee and the Secretary trustee having b...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Sajni Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1068
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. These appeals are against the judgment and decrees passed by the trial court in various claim cases filed by the different claimants on the basis of common cause of action, i.e., death of the persons in accident dated 15.1.94. The deceased persons Sahabram, Laxman Singh, Bheem Sen, Girdharilal, Gopal Ram, Chunilal and Jainarayan were travelling in the Jeep No. DBB 4839. In the early morning at about 5.45 AM when the Jeep was crossing the railway gate No. C-64, the train come on the rout of Hanumangarh to Chandigarh, 4588 down express and hit the Jeep resulting into death of all the above persons travelling in the Jeep. All the deceased person are either owner of their agricultural filed or having income from the agriculture only. The claimants-legal representatives of above deceased instituted suits for damages against the defendant-appellants. The trial court after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, held that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jodhpur Chartered Accountants Society and anr., Vs. Union of India (Uo ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: [2003]264ITR529(Raj); 2006[3]STR344; 2002WLC(Raj)UC708
N.N. MATHUR J. 1. By this judgment three writ petitions filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Finance Act by which service offered by the chartered accountants, real estate agents (property dealers) and the architects have been brought under the tax net, which is to be charged at 5 per cent. of the value of the taxable services provided by them are being disposed of. Since the question involved in all the three writ petitions is identical, all the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The first writ petition being D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4018 of 1998 has been filed by the Jodhpur Chartered Accountants Society. The society is aggrieved by the levy of service tax on persons belonging to the profession of chartered accountants. The second writ petition being D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4263 of 1998, has been filed by an association of property dealers in Jodhpur known as the Jodhpu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »