Rajasthan Court May 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. Bhola Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)82
N.N. Mathur, J.The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has made the instant reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, seeking opinion of the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and thereby directing grant of depreciation @ 30 per cent on rig machines not used for exploration of mineral oil as per item III-D(7) of depreciation schedule.'2. The facts giving rise to the instant reference are that the respondent-assessee is engaged to the drilling work. He filed return for the assessment year 1986-87 on 1-2-1988, declaring income of Rs. 40,980. The case was selected for scrutiny and, therefore, notice under section 143(2) was issued. A questionnaire was issued to the assessee. A notice was also given to produce regular books of account, if maintained by the assessee. The assessee was asked to furnish information on the following points :'1. In drilli...
Cit Vs. Superintending Engineer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)586
N.N. Mathur, J.The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has made this reference seeking opinion of this court on the following questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 272A(2)(c)2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty is leviable even though they have held that the assessee has committed a default without reasonable cause?3. Whether the Tribunal is right in observing that the words 'deductible' or 'collectible' used in the amended provisions of section 272A(2)(c) with effect from 1-10-1991, mean the amount of tax which remains to be 'deducted' or 'collected'?4. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the monetary limit in respect of penalty under section 272A(2)(c) prescribed with effect from 1-10-1991, was applicable to defaults committed earlier as well?5. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that proviso to section 272A(2)(c) wa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Popular Minerals
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Raj)339; [2002]258ITR593(Raj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, has made a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking opinion of this court on the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in : (i) holding that the royalty does not partake the character of 'tax', 'duty', 'cess' or 'fee' for the purpose of applicability of the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The facts giving rise to the instant reference application are that the respondent assessee-firm, Popular Minerals, is a registered firm deriving income from sale of unburnt china clay. The assessee claimed outstanding liability on account of royalty at Rs. 1,82,964. In the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the outstanding liability which had not been paid during the mining year was not deductible and allowable, in view of the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act. The order of the Assessing Officer...
Maharana Bhagwat Singhji (Decd.) (Through Legal Heir and Executor) Vs. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Raj)157; [2003]259ITR381(Raj)
N.N. Mathur J.1. This reference application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the assessee.2. The facts giving rise to the instant reference application are that the asses-see filed a return for the assessment year 1973-74, showing total income at Rs. 25,700 from the interest and rent. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had sold certain immovable properties during the previous year relating to the assessment year in question but he had declared no capital gain on the sale of the said property. According to the assessee, no capital gains chargeable to tax had been earned by him on the sale of the said properties. The Assessing Officer by an assessment order dated September 6, 1984, made an addition of Rs. 3,33,735 on account of capital gain. The said addition was only with respect of one of the properties, namely, Shiv Nivas Palace. It is alleged that by an agreement to sell dated June 27, 1971, the ass...
Sampat Lal Sethia Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)RLR1423; 2002(4)WLN492
Prasad, J.1. The petitioner in the present writ petition has impugned the order of Revisional Authority. In revision, the Revisional Authority has quashed a grant made in favour of the petitioner had his near relatives. The petitioner was at the relevant lime, Up-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Udasar. Even, recently he continues to be Up-Sarpanch.2. An application was field by the petitioner for the purchase of land in view of Rule 256 and 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1961'). While the application was processed, site was inspected as required by Rule 258 of the Rules of 1961. A Committee of three members for inspection of site was constituted by Panchayat including the petitioner. Since, the Committee of Members for inspection of site included the petitioner, he did not participate in the inspection. The inspection was carried out only by two members namely Shri Sukh Singh and Shri Mohbtaram. After inspection, a notice u...
Mewar Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2350; 2002(4)WLC565; 2003(2)WLN276
Garg, J. 1. Both the aforementioned writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in both of them identical questions of facts and law are involved.S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4130/20012. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner Company on 18.10.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned order dated 12.9.2001 (Annex.2) passed by the learned Judge, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No. 2) be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner-Company for staying the proceedings before the learned Judge, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in Case No. 106/2001 be accepted.3. It arises in the following circumstances:The petitioner is a Company under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956'). The petitioner- Company because of various reasons was declared as a Sick Industrial Establishment u...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jodhpur Diesels
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR92(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, has made the instant reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court on the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 ?' 2. The necessary facts are that the respondent-assessee is the sole distributor of MICO products for Jodhpur Division. The Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Jodhpur, made an ex parte assessment under Section 144 on March 27, 1985. It was reopened under Section 146 by order dated March 30, 1985. The assessee filed the returns of income for the periods April 1, 1980, to December 10, 1980, and from December 11, 1980, to March 31, 1981. The assessing authority byorder dated March 27, 1985, computed the total income of the assessee. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which was decided by order ...
Manohar Lal Sahani Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj776
Parihar, J. 1. Since on similar set of facts, the same relief have been claimed in the above review petitions, on the request of the learned counsel for the parties both the review petitions have been heard together and been decided by this common order. 2. The petitioners are seeking review of the order dated 21st July, 1997 passed by this Court Reliance have been placed on a circular/notification issued by the State Government on 6.4.1993, by which the Member Secretary, State Law Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur has also been added in the list of Head of Departments Class-1 as appended to the Rajasthan Service Rules. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioners were appointed purely on adhoc/temporary basis by the State Law Commission for a fixed tenure. The very nature of constitution of the State Law Commission shows that the same was constituted for a particular purpose with a fixed tenure. The State Law Commission was also given powers to recruit and appoint employees at its own conv...
Dev Kishan and ors. Lrs. of Kishan Lal Vs. Ram Kishan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1250; 2002(4)WLC130; 2002(4)WLN481
Garg, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by one Kishan Lal, original defendant No. 1 (during the pendency of this second appeal, Kishan Lal has died and his LRs have been taken on record, but for convenience, the appellants would hereinafter be referred to as appellant-defendant No. 1) against the judgment and decree dated 15.9.1980 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bikaner in appeal No. 30/77 by which the learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal of the appellant-defendant No. 1 and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1977 passed by the learned Munsiff, Bikaner in Civil Suit No. 17/69 (116/70 after transfer) by which the learned Munsiff decreed the suit of the plaintiffs Ram Kishan and Kailash, respondents No. 1 and 2 to this second appeal, but for convenience, they would hereinafter be termed as plaintiffs. The other original-defendants No. 2 to 5, namely, Madan Lal, Laxmi Chand, Megh Raj and Badri Das have been made respondents in this second appeal also, but for conven...
Cit Vs. Jodhpur Diesels
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Raj)300
ORDERMatter not subject matter of appealCatch Note:Assessee's contention that Commissioner had no power to exercise his revisional jurisdiction in view of alleged merger of assessment order with appellate order, in respect of matters not considered in appeal was without substance, since Commssioner is competent to revise an order of assessment passed by assessing officer on all matters except those which have been considered and decided in appeal--Fact that Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the question with respect to bonus, incentive, interest, depreciation incentive allowance, Commissioner had rightly exercised his jurisdiction for the purpose of revising the order of Income Tax Officer.Ratio:Principle of merger will not be applied where a decision of an inferior authority does not come in for consideration of the appellate authority and there is no decision of the appellate authority either by way of affirmance or by way of reversal or modification on the point decided by the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »