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.
Gordhan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR561]; RLW2003(3)Raj1991
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 9.3.1992 against the respondents with the prayers that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 31.12.1985 (Annex.P/9) issued by the Assistant Engineer, Vehicle Sub Division, Mechanical Division-2, Mahi Project, Banswara be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to make payment of the salary to the petitioner for the post of Generator Driver with effect from 1.1.1986 with all consequential benefits on the basis of principle of equal pay for equal work and the respondents be further directed to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Generator Driver with effect from 23.2.1983 etc. etc.2. It arises in the following circumstances:The petitioner for the first time came to be appointed on the post of Beldar with effect from 1.10.1974. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Helper from the post of Beldar vide order dated 1.10...
Bajrang Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1127; RLW2003(3)Raj1979; 2003(1)WLC462
Joshi, J.1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 5.8.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Merta in Criminal revision No. 23/97(14/95) Bajranglal v. State and Ors., whereby the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) - cum - A.C.J.M. Merta, dated 11.9.1995 in F.R. No. 13/88 (FIR No. 12/88) of Police Station, Jaswantgarh accepting the F.R., was upheld.2. Heard Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.D. Kalla, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Sandeep Mehta, learned counsel for the non-petitioners no. 2 to 5 (except non- petitioner No. 3 Chanda, against whom proceedings were abated on 23.1.2002 due to her death on 4.12.2000).3. The facts of the Case in brief are that one Suresh Kumar S/o Kanhaiya Lal submitted a report on 22nd March, 1988, alleging the on the day of occurrence at 6 a.m., his brother's wife Renudevi (deceased) went to Nohra to take ...
Cit Vs. Hotel Ratnada International (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN723(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 questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing to allow depreciation to the assessee on hotel building at the rate applicable to plant and machinery ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing to allow extra shift allowance on the hotel building including other plant and machinery of the hotel as the hotel is supposed to be running for 24 hours a day ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company and runs a hotel. The assessing officer had allowed depreciation at the rate of 5 per cent. The assessee claimed the depreciation at the rate of 10 per cent claiming that hotel building is part of plant. The assessing officer has negatived the claim of the asses...
ito Vs. L. N. Mehta (Huf)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)77TTJ(NULL)63
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.As the above appeals are interrelated and involve common points, so we are disposing them off by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. ITA No. 437, 438/Jdpr/98, are appeals by revenue for assessment years 1985-86 and 1988-89, respectively and are directed against two separate orders of Additional Commissioner (Appeals)/Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), dated 27-3-1998 and 27-3-1998, respectively.3. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records including the w/s of learned authorised representative of assessee.4. First we taken up ITA No. 437/Jdpr/98 being the revenue's appeal for assessment year 1985-86. Ground No. 1 disputes the deletion of addition of Rs. 13,000 made by assessing officer on account of separate professional receipts in the reassessment. The learned Departmental Representative of revenue has contended that the assessee is a renowned advocate and that his household expenses must be much more than what the asses...
Cit Vs. Pratap (Raj) Cooper Foils and Laminates Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN479(Raj)
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 question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in taking the view that the amendment introduced in section 43B by the Finance Act, 1989 has to be treated as retrospective and the amount of Rs. 36,019 is to be allowed as a deduction although it represented the sales tax collection made during the previous year and was paid only after the close of the previous year but before the due date for filing of sales tax return which was 30-6-1985 ?'2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submits that now the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]224ITR677(SC) .3. The learned counsel for the revenue, Mr. Singhi, has not controverted this fact that sales tax liability, which was due t...
Cit Vs. Kamal and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN57(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 and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing that no disallowance under section 43B should be made in respect of sales-tax for the assessment year 1987-88 if the amount has been paid within the time allowed under the Sales Tax Law, although after the close of the previous year of the assessee ?'2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submits that now the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]224ITR677(SC) .3. The learned counsel for the revenue, Mr. Singhi, has not controverted this fact that sales tax liability, which was due to be paid as required under the sales tax provision, has been paid though beyond period of previous year.4. Considering the su...
Smt. Kamla and anr. Vs. Ramesh Chandra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC321; 2002(5)WLN260
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 25.9.2000, by which the learned trial Court has refused to try the preliminary issue as to whether the non-petitioner/plaintiff has paid the required court fee in the case for the suit for per-emptory rights and declaration at the initial stage.2. While filing the suit seeking reliefs including declaration of sale deed as null and void, though the property had been valued for the purpose of Jurisdiction and court fee at Rs. 2,00,000/-, but the court fee of Rs. 200/-only has been paid. Petitioner-defendant filed an application that issue No. 6 regarding payment of adequate court fee may be decided as the preliminary issue at the initial stage as required under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), which has been rejected by the learned trial Court. Hence this revision.3. It has been submitted by Mr. Suresh Shrimalee, learned Counsel for petitioners, that the learned trial ...
Ghanshyam Singh Senger Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN458
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that although he was appointed on the post of Ayurved Junior Compounder/Nurse vide order dated 19.3.2002. the respondent No. 2 issued an order dated 3.4.2002 (Annex.4) cancelling his appointment. The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 3.4.2002 and prays that he be reinstated on the post of Ayurved Junior Compounder/Nurse with all consequential benefits.2. In the reply submitted by respondents it has been averred that the petitioner was wrongly appointed on the post of Ayurved Junior Compounder/Nurse and when the mistake came into knowledge the order of appointment was reviewed. The respondents have further averred in the reply that the name of the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 86 in the merit list of Ayurved Junior Compounder/Nurse and the petitioner secured 61.17% marks, whereas one other candidate Niranjan Sharma was placed at Sr. No. 85 also secured the same marks. But as the petitioner ...
Bindu Prasad Soni Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR663(Raj)
1. The Government of India introduced a scheme by the name of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, under Chapter IV of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, with a view to provide a quick and voluntary settlement of tax dues as on March 31, 1998, both in various direct tax enactments as well as indirect taxes enactment by offering waiver of a part of the arrear taxes and interest and providing immunity against institution of prosecution and imposition of penalty. The assessee on his part was required to withdraw the appeals pending before the various appellate authorities and courts. The scheme came into force on September 1, 1998, and ended on January 31, 1999.2. The petitioner is a goldsmith by profession. He derives income mainly from manufacturing gold ornaments on job basis. The house and business premises of the petitioner were searched on November 18, 1988. He filed the return in response to notice under Section 148 on January 23, 1992, on a total income of Rs. 14,863. The Assessing Office...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Kedar Nath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR563(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1957'), 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 justified in upholding the finding of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, from the interest of the assessee in the immovable property held by the firm 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment of the assessee for the year under consideration is not validly reopened under Section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. The assessment order relates to the year of 1974-75. The original assessment was framed on November 3, 1974. In the original assessment exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act of 1957 was allowed to the assessee, i.e., 1/3rd ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »