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.
H.M. Pareek Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN335(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 right in holding that no deduction is allowable from the incentive bonus received by the Development Officers of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as incentive bonus is a part of salary ?'2. The assessee is a salaried employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'LIC'). In addition to the salary from LIC, the assessee received 'incentive bonus' of Rs. 1,15,106 from the LIC. The assessee claimed deduction at the rate of 40 per cent on the amount of this incentive bonus as estimated expenses for earning such incentive bonus. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee.3. In appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the view ...
Rajasthan Cylinders and Containers Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Raj)614
By the CourtOn an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-company was not entitled to carry forward of loss computed for the assessment year 1985-86 ?'2. The assessee is a limited company. The assessee-company claims to have made an application in Form No. 6 for extension of time on 28-6-1985, for filing the return which was due to be filed on 30-6-1985. In the application the time sought was uptill 30-9-1985. In the return, the assessee has shown a loss of Rs. 25,82,740. The assessment was, however, completed computing total loss of Rs. 9,71,561. The business loss was only Rs. 8,095 while the depreciation to be carried forward was Rs. 9,55,371. The Income Tax Officer did not allow to carry forward the loss determined, while making the assessment on the ground that returns were not filed on or before the due date. Commissioner (Appe...
Unna Ram Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC227; 2002(5)WLN713
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.1.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jodhpur, affirming the judgment and the decree of the trial Court dated 7.5.1999, by which it had decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 25,000/- with consequential reliefs.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that between the parties, an agreement to sell was executed on 6.2.1996 in respect of the land measuring 4 bighas for a consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/- and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to the appellant-defendant as the earnest money with a understanding that the respondent-plaintiff shall be put in possession and further amount shall be paid on future dates. However, on the agreed date, i.e. 9.2.1996, respondent- plaintiff could not be put in possession as the land, in respect of which the agreement to sell had been executed, could not been partitioned between the co-tenants and late...
Maharao Brijraj Singh and anr. Vs. Saraswati Devi Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN16
Arun Madan, J.1. This misc. appeal arises out of order dated 2.2.2000 passed by the Addl. Judge No. 1, Kota in application for temporary injunction, whereby appellants (defendant) have been restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land during pendency of suit No. 1/2000 for specific performance of the contract.2. Plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit seeking specific performance of contract and permanent injunction against Maharao Brijraj Singh & Thakur Prithvi Singh in respect of 80 Bighas of agricultural land situated in village Rampura Tehsil Ladpura District Kota renowned as Ummaid Vilas Enclave, bearing Khasra Nos. 433, 434, 436 to 439, 440 to 489, 491, 492/684 and 546/691. In the plaint, it was admitted case that the suit land stood acquired by State Govt. under the Urban Land Ceiling & Regulation Act, 1976 (for brevity ULCAR Act) but by order dated 24.2.1990, it had been released from its acquisition with the stipulation that suit lands would...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Kailash Chandra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC412; 2003CriLJ284; RLW2003(3)Raj1944; 2002(4)WLC637; 2002(5)WLN198
D.N. Joshi, J.1. The instant petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the criminal complaint case No. 461/94 under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called as the Act) pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2. Bhilwara against the petitioner may be quashed.2. Heard Mr. Sachin Acharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari, for the respondent.3. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that a complaint was filed by Ashok Kumar on 24.1.1994 before he Trial Court alleging inter alia that in pursuance to a family settlement, a cheque of Bhilwara Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. was handed over by the petitioner on 1st July, 1993 amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. It was further alleged that when the cheque was presented in the Bank, it could not be honoured due to the instructions of stop payment. It was also averred in the complaint that the cheque was again present...
Dr. Pushpa Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj702; 2002(4)WLC47
Sharma, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is as under-(i) This writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction the action of the respondents in not providing age relaxation of 10 years to the women candidates of SC, ST & OBC Category may kindly be declared to be illegal arid the same may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to provide relaxation of 10 years in maximum age i.e. 33 + 10 to the petitioner i.e., 33+10 to the petitioner i.e., general category women candidates and the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner accordingly by treating her within the age and if found suitable otherwise, the respondents may be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lecturer (History) from the dates other candidates are appointed in pursuance of the advertisement No.1/2001-2002.(ii) by further appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajesh Khandelwal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Raj)392
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Dy. CIT(A), who has accepted the claim of the assessee under Section 80C, towards the payment of Rs. 10,000 made under the Kalptaru Scheme to Rajasthan Housing Board for purchase of residential house despite the fact that the above payment will qualify for deduction only if the income from the house is chargeable to tax under the head 'Income from house property' in the assessment year in which the deduction is claimed ?'2. The assessee is an individual and derives income from salary from LIC of India. During the course of assessment, AO has noticed that assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs. 10,000 towards the payment made under the 'Kalptaru Scheme' to Rajasthan Housing Board for purchase of residential house during the assessment...
Krishna and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj2032; 2002(4)WLC648; 2002(5)WLN418
Chauhan, J.1. The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, i.e. Addl. District Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Civil First Appeal No. 29/1999 dated 31.10.2001, by which it had affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court in Civil Suit No. 34/1999 dated 5.4.99.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that certain land of the appellants had been acquired long back alongwith the land of others and respondent No. 4. After completing the requirements of law, possession of the land had been taken and vested in the State free from all incumbrances, the land was used for the purpose it had been acquired, but certain pieces of land out of the land originally owned by the appellant-plaintiffs remained un-used for the purpose. The respondent No. 4 had not been paid full amount of compensation and the matter remained pending. He applied to the concerned Authorities that in lieu of compensation, the surplus land may be allotted to...
Cit Vs. Dimensional Plastiglass Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN46(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 and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting addition made under section 43B notwithstanding the fact that the assessee did not make the payment of outstanding liability of sales tax of Rs. 97,498, ESI Rs. 640 and PF Rs. 3,025 during the previous year relevant to assessment year 1984-85 ?'.2. The assessee is a Private Ltd. company which claimed liability of Rs. 97,498 on account of sales tax, Rs. 640 on account of Employees State Insurance and Rs. 3,025 on account of Employees Provident Fund. Though the assessee contended before the Commissioner (Appeals), that the amount was paid after due date as required under section 43B of the Act in appeal, before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the claim. Following the de...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.S. Loomba
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)536
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Considering the submissions, the appeal is admitted in terms of the following questions :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO under the various heads namely, household expenses, unexplained investment in shares, loan, bank deposits, undisclosed investment in plot and unexplained investment in shares on protective basis and understatement of capital gains on sale of plot in view of the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act ?''Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the provisions of Section 158BB(2) of the IT Act, which make the legal fiction enacted under Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, the additions made by the AO could be deleted ?' .2. Issue notice to the other side. Notices be made returnable within six weeks. Paper book be filed within 4 months. List the appeal for hearing after 4 months....
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »