Rajasthan Court July 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. Jindal and Jindal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN482(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 for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in taking the view that no disallowance under section 43B should be made in respect of sales tax amount which has been paid within the time allowed under the relevant sales tax law, although after the close of the previous year of the assessee relevant to the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 ?'2. None appeared for the assessee. Heard the learned counsel for the revenue. The learned counsel for the revenue fairly admits that now the issue is concluded by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]224ITR677(SC) , wherein their Lordships have held that if the sales tax is not paid by the end of the accounting year, but paid within the period allowed in the ...
Asstt. Cit Vs. L.N. Mehta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)76TTJ(NULL)594
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.This appeal by revenue for assessment year 1981-82 is directed against the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 18-12-1993.2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records.3. The revenue has raised the sole ground disputing the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)'s order in cancelling the assessment made under section 147. The learned Departmental Representative of revenue has contended that though the income assessed in reassessment was less than Rs. 50,000, but that will not make the information with assessing officer to be for a belief of, escapement of income of less than Rs. 50,000. He has contended that in fact at the time of recording of reasons regarding income have escaped the assessing officer had estimated the escaped income at more than Rs. 50,000, so the initiation of proceedings under sections 148 and 147 was valid. He has supported the assessing officer's order. As against this the learned authorised represe...
Cit Vs. Hari Oil Mills Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN481(Raj)
On an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, notwithstanding the fact that the amount of sales tax was paid after the close of the accounting year ?'2. At the out-set, Mr. R.B. Mathur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commissioner, Jaipur, fairly admits that now the issue has been concluded by their Lordships in the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]224ITR677(SC) wherein their Lordships have taken the view that if the sales tax amount has not been paid by the end of the accounting year but paid within the period allowed in the sales tax provisions, then that be allowed as deduction. Considering the submissions and following the view taken by their Lordships in the...
Cit Vs. Arawali Construction Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN146(Raj)
ORDEROn an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), 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 treating the expenditure in the acquisition of software of Rs. 1,38,360 as of revenue nature ?'2. The assessee-company had acquired computer software which had cost of Rs. 1,38,360 which the assessee claimed as the revenue expenditure. However, the assessing officer had taken it as a capital expenditure and allowed depreciation as per rules. In appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that the expenditure incurred on technical know-how is a revenue expenditure. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal decided the issue against the revenue relying upon the decisions of the Delhi and Bombay High Courts and confirmed the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals).None appeared on...
Cit Vs. Ruby Trading Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN186(Raj)
ORDERY.R. Meena, J. On 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 questions for our opinion:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding in law that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in section 54E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under section 263 and in holding that the order passed by the Income Tax Officer was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue ?'2. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee-company held 4945 shares of Colaba Land & Mills Co. Ltd. since 1954. The company Colaba Land & Mills Co. Ltd. went into liquidation and the assessee-company realised the face value of the shares in the assessment yea...
Rajasthan Central Stores (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Raj)616
By the CourtOn an application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 25,875 paid as gratuity to Shri G.P. Periwal, former sales manager of the assessee was not admissible as business expenditure ?'2. During the course of assessment the assessing officer noticed that the assessee has paid Rs. 25,875 as gratuity to one Shri G.P. Periwal, sales manager of the assessee, and claimed deduction. The assessing officer, rejected the claim on the ground that there is no practice nor there is any law nor there is any justification for making payment of gratuity to Mr. Periwal. The view taken by the assessing officer has been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal has also affirmed the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.4. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Taksali
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Raj)625; [2002]257ITR352(Raj)
1. The present appeal had been admitted on July 10, 2000, but no question was framed. Therefore, we have to consider three questions which have been proposed in Para. H of the instant appeal which reads as under :'1. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding itself that the total income of the assessee is below taxable limit then he was not obliged/required to file return of income and as such the assessee's case was covered by Section 139(1A) of the Act and thereby deleting additions?2. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing to allow the credit for TDS in block assessment when such income was not added in the total income of the assessee for block assessment period?3. Whether the order passed by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal suffers from perversity of law and facts?'2. A search and seizure operation was carried out under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on September 27, 1995, at the residential ...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Judge Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR232]; RLW2003(2)Raj724
Sharma, J. 1. The petitioners seek to challenge the award dated March 15, 2001 of the learned Labour Court No.2 Jaipur whereby the order dated June 7, 1994 terminating the services of the respondent workman was declared illegal and the respondent workman was directed to be reinstated in the services with all back wages.2. In the statement of claim filed before the court below the respondent workman averred that he was taken on job on the post of Chowkidar (watchman) videorder dated February 9, 1992 and since then he continued to carry on work but on June 7, 1994 he was removed from services. The petitioner approached the Reconciliation Officer and on failure of the reconciliation proceedings following point was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication-'Whether Women and Child Development Department Neem Ka Thana is the 'Industry'? If yes, whether the removal of workman Rameshwar Lal s/o Prabhati Lal Saini from services w.e.f. June 7, 1994 is legal and valid? If not, to what relief...
Asstt. Cit Vs. Laxmi Narayan Mehta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)76TTJ(NULL)686
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.As the above appeals are inter-related and involve common points, so we are disposing them off by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. ITA Nos. 439/Jdpr/98, 622/Jp/97, 1757/Jp/94, 382/Jdpr/99 and 629/Jp/97 are all appeals by revenue for assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94, respectively, and are directed against the orders of Commissioner (Appeals)/Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 27-3-1998, 26-12-1996, 27-6-1994, 12-4-1999 and 26-12-1996, respectively.3. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records including the w/s of the learned authorised representative of assessee, whichever have been furnished on record.4. In all the above 5 appeals of revenue, the department has raised the sole common substantive ground disputing the deletion by Commissioner (Appeals)/Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of addition on account of interest income on debtors as Rs. 54,100, Rs. 79,000, Rs. 92,403, Rs. 1,06,595 and Rs. 83,450, res...
Cit Vs. Ashok Taksali
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN45(Raj)
ORDERThe present appeal had been admitted on 10-7-2000 but no question was framed therefor, we have to consider three questions which have been proposed in Para H of the instant appeal which reads as under :'1. Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding itself that total income of assessee is below taxable limit then he was not obliged/ required to file return of income and as such the assessee's case was covered by section 139(1A) of the Act and thereby deleting additions ?2. Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing to allow the credit for TDS in block assessment when such income was not added in the total income of assessee for block assessment period ?3. Whether the order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal suffers from perversity, of law and facts ?'2. A search and seizure operation was carried out under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 27-9-1995 at t...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »