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.
Sumerpur Truck Operators Union Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Raj)297
By the CourtThis appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act is directed against the order of the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench dated 22-2-2002. The appellant has framed as many as 9 substantial questions of law in para No. 10 of the memo of appeal. However, the learned counsel has pressed only question Nos. (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v). The said questions as reproduced are as under :'(ii) Whether the income of the excess of receipts over expenditure of the appellant union was not exempt under section 10(24) of the Income Tax Act, particularly when the appellant union was duly registered under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926 ?(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant union, a union of truck owners was not a union of workers within the meaning of Trade Unions Act, 1926 (primarily formed with the view to regulate the relations between its members and the employers namely the transporters), was not entitled to claim exemption of income as provided under section 1...
Asstt. Cit Vs. VipIn Doshi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)85
By the CourtHeard. Following substantial question of law is involved in this appeal :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the drilling machines used by the assessee should be treated as earth-moving machinery, falling under entry 4 of the item III-D of Part I of Appendix I of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and, therefore, entitled to depreciation at 30 per cent ?'2. Admit.3. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, we have taken this matter for final disposal.4. This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act is directed against the order dated 26-10-1998, passed by Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. The respondent-assessee is proprietor of M/s Mewar Trading Company, Udaipur. He filed return declaring a loss of Rs. 7,41,062. The assessing officer completed assessment on 30-3-1987, on loss of Rs. 3,23,531. It was observed that an investment allowance shall be allowed next year if there is positive income. Subsequent...
Jangir Singh (Through His Legal Representatives) Vs. Board of Revenue ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC551; 2003(2)WLN186
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the only contesting respondent, who has put in appearance on caveat.2. A short issue arises for consideration in this case. The facts are not in dispute.3. The land in question consists of 66 bighas of land belonging to Lehan Singh, who was recorded as khatedar of this land. He died somewhere in 1949, at that time Hindu Succession Act had not come into force. At the time of his death, the said Lehan Singh was survived by his son Hari Singh. Hari Singh had one son Jangir Singh. At the time when Lehan Singh died the property devolved on Hari Singh as successor of Lehan Singh. As Hari Singh had inherited the property from his father, the immediate ancestor, before the commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property in his hands was ancesstral property, which was subject to unobstructed heritage and his son Jangir Singh got interest in the land by birth and was a co-parcener with his father.4...
Aditya Cement Staff Club Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj396; 2003(4)WLC663
Balia, J. 1. These two writ petitions are by the respective Staff Associations of M/s Aditya Cement and M/s Birla White Cement Plants which are two separate and independent Units of Grasim Industries Limited. The issue raised and the reliefs claimed in both these writ petitions are identical and hence, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order.2. The reliefs claimed in both the writ petitions are identical and as under:-(i) The Notification No. SO 940(E) dated 25.9.2001 251 ITR 81 (Annexure/1) be quashed as violative of Articles 14, 300A, 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Section 17(2)(vi)* as Parliament has deleged without authority of law and without any guideline, to select the items of perquisites and the valuation thereof to the Executive and the Rule-framing Authority be quashed and declared ultra vires the Constitution. (iii) The assessing authorities constituted under the Income Tax Act to permanently refrain from enforcement of the Notificat...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Shyam Mohan Rawat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR711(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, 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 directing the Wealth-tax Officer to arrive at the value of the immovable property by applying Rule 1BB and further in directing if the value arrived at by applying Rule 1BB does not exceed the value as per the books by 20 per cent., then he shall not apply Rule 2B(2) in respect of the immovable property ?'2. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. Ranka, submits that now the issue is covered by the decision of the apex court in the case of CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swamp and Sons : 1995ECR425(SC) , wherein their Lordships have taken the view that Rule 1BB is procedural and has retrospective effect. This rule provides the method for valuing a house wholly or mainly used for residential purpose and when choice is given, the value of the property can be asc...
Balu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR283]; (2003)IILLJ705Raj; 2003WLC(Raj)UC103; 2002(5)WLN674
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge in modifying the award passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur on April 26, 1994 by allowing the back wages with effect from the date of making of reference instead of from the date of termination of services. 2. The facts of the case are, as found by the Tribunal, that the appellant was appointed, in the first instance, temporary in place of deceased employee Deva Ram as his dependent son on compassionate ground on October 14, 1986. This order dated October 14, 1986 by giving him appointment against the available vacant post, was cancelled without notice and his service was first converted into appointment as daily rated workman by a subsequent order dated February 1, 1987. Finally, on June 2, 1988 his services were terminated. The respondent State has pleaded that his services were not terminated, but he has voluntarily absented himself from duty. Be that...
Lala @ Lal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2628; 2003(1)WLC669
Goyal, J.1. Both the appeal against their conviction and sentence under Section 395 IPC were filed by the accused appellants Lal Singh and Ajit Singh.As usual the prosecution case begins with the first information report ex.P.3. Briefly speaking, the prosecution case is that P.W. 2 Shri Vikram singh, the victim of this occurrence, lodged written report Ex.P. 3 at Policy Station Mundawar, district Alwar at about 7.40 p.m. on 15.2.96 with the averments that he was preparing his meals in a room at the petrol pump situated near village Mundawar. Three unknown persons respectively armed with revolver, knife and saria entered the room at about 7-20 to 7-30 p.m., surrounded him and asked for key of cash box. On account of fear, he handed-over the key and the 4th person took away Rs. 26,000/- from that box. All the accused person went away alongwith two containers of oil and telephone instrument. Before leaving the place he was confined to the room and the show room was also shut from the out ...
Cwt Vs. Santosh Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN265(Raj)
On an application under section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, 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 upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that in the case of residential properties rule 1BB being procedural, would apply to assessment years 1972-73 to 1977-78, even prior to 1-4-1979?'2. At the out set, learned counsel for the revenue Mr. Singhi fairly admits that now the issue is covered by the decision of Apex Court in the case of CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons : 1995ECR425(SC) , wherein their Lordships have taken the view that rule 1BB has the application. Rule 1BB is procedural, therefore, it has a retrospective effect.3. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal.4. In the result, we answer the question in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the rev...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Santosh Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Raj)590
1. On an application under Section 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasjustified in upholding the decision of the AAC that in the case of residentialproperties Rule 1BB being procedural, would apply to asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1977-78, even prior to 1st April, 1979?'2. At the out set, learned counsel for the Revenue Mr. Singhi fairly admits that now the issue is covered by the decision of apex Court in the case of CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons (1994) 210 IFR 886 (SC), wherein their Lordships have taken the view that Rule 1BB has the application. Rule 1BB is procedural, therefore, it has a retrospective effect.3. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal.4. In the result, we answer the question in affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.5. Reference so made stan...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Laxman Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1982; 2002(4)WLC271
Harbans Lal, J.1. This civil misc. appeal under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called in short, 'the Act') is directed against the award dated 9.7.1999 passed by the learned Judge M.A.C.T., Neem ka Thana, Sikar in Claim Case No. 41 of 1996.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that appellant Sunil Kumar was coming from Mehrauli to Reengus in a jeep No. RJ-19-C-1464 on 2.12.1995. It was being driven by the respondent No. 1, Laxman Singh, and was insured with respondent No. 2. The jeep was originally registered in the name of Heera Lal who transferred it to Laxman Singh on 8.11.1995 and entry to that effect was also made in the registration certificate. However, the cover note which was issued on 1.8.1995 in the name of Heera Lal, was not got transferred in the name of the transferee. The jeep dashed against a standing truck No. RJ-07-0306 near Math Mandir on the Jaipur-Reengus Road at 10.30 p.m. as a result of which the appellant sustained serious injuries. He fil...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »