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.
Premier Vegetable Products Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN740(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 our opinion:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that one-fifth of the motor car expenses amounting to Rs. 5,523 were not incurred for the purposes of the business of the company ?2. Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that telephone expenses amounting to Rs. 6,000 were not incurred for the purposes of the business of the company ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the disallowance to the tune of Rs. 15,000 on account of excessive wastage of tin plates in the manufacturing of tin containers was correct ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1975-76. The assessee declared a loss of Rs. 41,11,260 on 1-9-1975. During ...
Jaipur Oil Products Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN739(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 our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 8,000 out of the mess expenses incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the business were not allowable ?Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any material or any evidence in holding that the expenditure on consumption of stores and coal is disallowable to the extent of Rs. 30,000 ?Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any material or evidence in disallowing a sum of Rs. 70,000 out of the expenditure under the head 'Consumption of Hexine' ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1975-76. The assessee declared a loss of Rs. 28,22,180. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer noticed that assessee...
Cit Vs. Registhan (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN2(Raj)
ORDEROn an application filed under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Appellate 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 holding that the weighted deduction under section 35B of Income Tax Act, 1961 should be allowed on Technical Directors salary amounting to Rs. 1,00,142?'2. The assessee derives income from the company which is a dealer in readymade garments for the relevant assessment year 1977-78.3. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the arguments made in this case is similar to the arguments made in the case of D.B. I.T. Ref. No. 84/1981.4. As the questions involved in the instant case is similar to the questions involved in the aforementioned case, the present reference is decided in terms of the view taken in the order passed in DB IT Ref. No. 84/1991 that the view of the Tribunal is erroneous.5. I...
State of Rajasthan Through the Chief Secretary and ors. Vs. Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC682; 2002(4)WLN702
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This revision petition under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 read with Section 115 C.P.C. is directed against the order dated 18.7.2000 of the Rajasthan Wakf Tribunal, Jaipur in Case No. 29/2000 under which the temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff non-petitioner.2. The plaintiff non-petitioner instituted a suit before the Tribunal along with an application for temporary injunction alleging that in Sub-town Bayana Distt. Bharatpur land falling in Khasra No. 1217 is graveyard measuring 29 Bighas 11 biswas. It is averred that the land in dispute was shown/entered as Aheale Islam between Samvat 2002 to 2005 (1945 to 1948). A grievance has been made that the defendant petitioners have encroached upon the graveyard and have started construction. It is stated that the defendant petitioners have no right to enter upon and construct on the disputed graveyard. The defendant petitioners submitted the written statement as well as reply to the application ...
Cit Vs. National Boring Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)84
N.N. Mathur, J.In spite of service, respondent-assessee has chosen not to appear.2. Heard Mr. Bhandawat, learned counsel for the revenue.3. This reference application is at the instance of the revenue seeking reference on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the fact in the quoted by the Tribunal, i.e., CIT v. Popular Borewell Service & Ors. : [1992]194ITR12(Mad) , the Madras High Court had held that depreciation of 30 per cent was not allowable on rig and compressor used in drilling borewells, the Tribunal was justified in holding that depreciation @ 30 per cent was allowable on rig and compressor used in drilling borewells ?.'4. The said question has been answered by the judgment of this court in CIT v. Bhola Ram (D.B. IT Ref. No. 118/1995) decided on 11-5-2002 (2002) 177 CTR (Raj) 82.Since the question has been answered by this Court, it is not necessary to undergo the formality of calling the reference from the Tribunal...
Dr. Achleshwar Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2094; 2003(1)WLC314
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal has arisen in the following circumstances:- The appellant was appointed as Assistant Professor in Pediatrics vide order dated 21st August, 1980, the appointment was to the Medical and Health Service (Collegiate Branch) of the State of Rajasthan, governed by Rajasthan Medical and Health Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (in short the Rules of 1992 hereinafter). The post of Associate Professor under the Rules of 1962 is filled 100% by promotion. The criteria for promotion to the existing post is 50% on the basis of 'seniority-cum-merit' and 50% 'on merit'. Under Rule 24-A(5), the requirement for promotion form the lower post to next higher post or category in the State Service is that candidate must have at least 5 years of service unless a different period is prescribed elsewhere in the Rules. However, this criteria for five years services can be relaxed by the Committee in case of non-availability of the persons wit...
Uda Ram Vs. Pyare Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2342; 2003(1)WLC687
Garg, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bikaner in Civil Appeal No. 70/85 by which he dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19.9.19984 passed the learned Addl. Munsiff No. 1 Bikaner in original civil suit No. 103/77 (367/74) by which the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for eviction of the defendant - respondent from the suit premises (shop) on the ground of reasonable & bonafide necessity as envisaged under Section 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950'), was dismissed.2. It arises in the following circumstances:The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit on 18.11.1974, later-on the plaint was amended on 15.11.1976 through which para 4(A) was added and, thereafter, the plaint was further amended on 30.3.1983 by which another para...
Kamal Motors Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Raj)166
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal. The following questions are raised in this appeal: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining addition on account of cash credits of Rs. 1,05,000, without considering the evidence on record and on the basis of presumption and assumption ?' 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining two additions on account of unexplained cash credits of Rs. 1,05,000 and the tradition addition, without applying a principle of telescoping to cover up addition of cash credit from trading addition, being a settled proposition of law and goes to the root of the case?' 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly refused to interfere to decide the ground of telescoping only on the ground that it does not arise from the order of CIT(A), irrespective of the fact that ground was raised before...
The Nagaur Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajast ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj245; RLW2003(3)Raj2066; 2002(5)WLC118; 2002(5)WLN238
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 8-4-92 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dtd. 8-7-87 (Annex. 3) passed by the DSO, Nagaur, order dtd. 9-11-87 (Annex. 6) passed by the Collector, Nagaur and order dtd. 18-4-91 (Annex. 8) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Food and Supply Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur be quashed.2. It arises in the following circumstances:i) That the petitioner-Society is a duly registered co-operative marketing society and its area of operation extends to the revenue limits of Tehsil Nagaur and Jayal.ii) That the petitioner-Society was issued the authorisation for a distribution of essential commodities in its area of operation.iii) That the petitioner-Society has been dealing in distribution of levy sugar in accordance with the directions issued to it from time to time by the State Government.iv) That th...
Bimla Lakhera (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj592; 2002(4)WLC103
Arun Kumar, C.J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a direction to appoint her to the post of Additional district & Sessions Judge in the Rajasthan High Court Judicial Service (For short hereinafter referred to as 'RHJS').2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner is enrolled as an Advocate with the Rajasthan Bar Council. In the year 1992, the Rajasthan High Court issued an advertisement for direct recruitment to 22 posts in RHJS. Out of these 22 posts, 5 posts were reserved for women candidates. Some posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and other backward class candidates. The petitioner applied in the capacity of a Scheduled Caste candidate. A written test for screening of the candidates was held on 06.8.2000. The petitioner qualified the said test. She also appeared for interview thereafter.3. On 24.4.2001, the petitioner received a letter from the Deputy Secretary (Law), Government of Rajastha...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »