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.
Bijay Paper Traders and Investment Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: [2003]42SCL18(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. In this application filed under Section 460(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 by the applicant prayer is made that the auction/bid/sale of the property of the Company (in liquidation) may not be confirmed till the disposal thereof. It is further prayed that the Official Liquidator may kindly be directed to furnish the information to the applicant company, as desired by it, under the letter dated 17th June, 2002, Annexure-2.3. On 5th of July, 2002, the matter was placed on the board for preliminary hearing. The notice of the application was given to the Official Liquidator. Shri Amod Kashliwal, accepted the same. On that day, the Court has observed that the applicant if so desire may have inspection of the assets which are put to auction under the tender notice dated 1st June, 2002.4. Learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute that on deposit of fees, the inspection...
Hanuman Sahai Choudhary Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)715
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt. 6th May, 2002, passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition has been dismissed.2. The grievance which was raised by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the petitioner had objected to the notices issued by the ITO on the ground that the same were time-barred but this objection was not being decided by the ITO. The learned Single Judge has observed in the end of the order that the ITO is expected to decide the representation so submitted by the petitioner as early as possible and petitioner is also given liberty to raise all objections which are raised here in the writ petition before the ITO and ITO is expected to decide the objections as early as possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order passed by the learned Single Judge.3. We convert this expectation of the learned Single Judge as a direction by this Court to the ITO. Learned counsel for the app...
Lal Singh Vs. the Authority Under Shops and Commercial Establishments ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR898]; RLW2003(3)Raj1829; 2002(4)WLN671
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1.This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 11.5.1992 against the (SIC) with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment dated 28.11.1991 (Annex.8) passed by the No. 1-Authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, Sri Ganganagar be quashed and set aside.2. It arises in the following circumstances:The respondent No. 2 Tilak Raj filed a claim petition under Section 28-A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1958') before the respondent No. 1 Authority under Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the Authority') on 8.5.1989 stating inter alia that the respondent No. 2 had been functioning as Manager in the New Light talkies, Raisingh Nagar District Sri Ganganagar and he was being paid salary of Rs.1075/- per month since 15.4.1979 and the services o...
Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1865; 2002(5)WLC276; 2003WLC(Raj)UC454
Lal, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the proceedings initialed against the petitioner on the basis of FIR No. 253/96 dated 14.11.1996 recorded by the Anti- Corruption Bureau, Jodhpur in which after investigation challan has been filed against the petitioner alongwith co-accused Ramesh Purohit. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that one Sugna Ram, the then Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Patel Nagar, Tehsil Bilara made a complaint on 9.11.1996 to the Addl. S.P. ACD Cases, Jodhpur with the allegations that a Panchayat Bhawan has been got constructed under the famine relief scheme on a total cost of Rs. 3,20,000/- out of which the payment of Rs. 76,000/- was yet to be made and for the payment of which Shri ramesh Purohit, the then B.D.O. demanded Rs. 32,000/- as bribe i.e. 10% of the total amount of Rs. 3,20,000/-. After verifying the satisfying about the veracity the truth of the allegations, a trap was arranged ...
Peeru Lal, Mohan Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR198(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the present assessment proceedings should be considered to be barred by law because of the intervening irregularities and the consequent delay ?'2. The assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 43,820. The relevant assessment year is 1975-76. Initially the assessment order was passed on August 16, 1977. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside that assessment order and directed to make fresh assessment. Fresh assessment order was passed under Section 144 on May 25, 1978. That assessment order was recalled under Section 146 on November 20, 1978. Thereafter a draft assessment order was prepared and that draft order was sent to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on November 28, 1979. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner later on found that draft assessment or...
Sanwar Mal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2623; 2002(4)WLC761; 2003(2)WLN313
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 23.9.91 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order of termination dtd. 17.8.91 (Annex. 26) passed by respondent No. 1 be declared illegal and be quashed and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and the respondents may further be directed to pay salary to the petitioner in the regular scale of pay from the date of initial appointment or at any rate from the date it was sanctioned i.e. 1.10.85 and arrears may be directed to be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum etc. etc.2. It arises in the following circumstances:-(i) That the petitioner passed his Diploma in Electrical Engineering from the Government Polytechnic College, Bikaner in the year 1975.(ii) That the petitioner moved an application on 23.3.82 (annex. 2) to the Chairman, Municipal Board, Sadulp...
Cit Vs. Abdul Karim Stone
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)167
By the CourtOn an application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in taking the view that an amount of Rs. 503 being sales-tax liability and an amount of Rs. 71,099 being provident fund liability which had not been paid by the assessee within the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1986-87 but which had been paid within the time allowed under the sales-tax law and the provident. find law respectively, should not have been disallowed under section 43B of the Income Tax Act?''Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in taking the view that an amount of Rs. 11,770 incurred on stamps and an amount of Rs. 87,089 paid to the bank as guarantee fee for fee for obtaining loan from IDBI for purchase of new machinery should be allowed as revenue e...
Cit Vs. Golecha Minerals (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN742(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 deleting addition made under section 43B notwithstanding the fact that the assessee did not make the payment of outstanding sales tax liability during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1987-88 ?'2. None appeared for the assessee. At the out-set the learned counsel for the revenue Mr. Singhi clearly admits that now the issue is covered by the decision of their Lordships in the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]224ITR677(SC) .3. Considering the submission and following the view taken by their Lordships, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal.4. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.Reference so ...
Peeru Lal Mohan Lal Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Raj)377
By the CourtOn an application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the present assessment proceedings should be considered to be barred by law because of the intervening irregularities and the consequent delay ?'2. The assessee filed return declaring an income of Rs. 43,820. The relevant assessment year is 1975-76. Initially the assessment order was passed on 16-8-1977. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside that assessment order and directed to make fresh assessment. Fresh assessment order was passed under section 144 oil 25-5-1978. That assessment order was recalled under section 146 on 20-11-1978. Thereafter a draft assessment order was prepared and that draft order was sent to Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on 28-11-1979. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner later on found that draft assessment order cannot be passed un...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR114(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the assessee's claim for writing off of the sum of Rs. 52,489 and litigation expenses at Rs. 12,000 ?'2. During the assessment year 1979-80, the Assessing Officer noticed that a sum of Rs. 52,489 was written off on account of advance made to the agriculturist for purchase of agricultural land. The intention of the assessee, of course, was to acquire the land to set up a boiler factory, but ultimately that did not materialise. The agriculturist refused to refund the amount. The asses-see filed a civil suit in the court, where the assessee lost its claim. Then the assessee had written off that amount in the books of account and claimed deduction on the incurred amount as revenue loss. The Assessing Officerrejected his claim. According to the As...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »