Rajasthan Court August 2002 Judgments
income-tax Officer Vs. Vaibhav Textiles
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)593; [2002]258ITR346(Raj)
1. This appeal has been admitted in terms of the following question : 'Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in its wisdom to allow the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act even thoughthe conditions as laid down or as inserted by the Explanation (aa) were not fulfilled by the assessee ?' 2. The assessee-firm filed its return for the assessment year 1990-91 and declared a total income of Rs. 20,339 only. 3. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued. During the course of assessment it is noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act though the articles were sold in India against foreign currency. The Assessing Officer negatived the claim of deduction under Section 80HHC 4. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) followed his earlier order in the case of Anil Exports v. ITO (I. T. A. No. 1811/JP of 1992), and also considered ...
Tag this Judgment!Darshan Singh Vs. Kewal Krishan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj313
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 8-11-2001, by which the trial Court refused to take the amended plaint on record for the reason that it had been filed after expiry of fourteen days from the date of the order allowing the amendment by the Court.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise that this case are that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit on 13-10-1998 against the respondent-defendant for eviction from the suit premises on various grounds including the default in payment of rent, material alteration, sub-letting as well as personal necessity and also for recovery of arrears of rent. At a later stage, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') was filed stating that the petitioner stood retired from service during pendency of the suit and regarding commencement of business by him along with his son in the suit premises. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Co...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: 2005(185)ELT234(Raj)
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the respondent on caveat.2. This is an application under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The facts leading to this application are that the yarn manufactured by the assessee passes through two stages. In the first instance single yarn is manufactured and by using that single yarn to further process it is converted into double yarn. The respondent-assessee has paid duty on double yarn. The case of the revenue is that the double yarn is not a dutiable item but duty was to be paid on single yarn and therefore on the entire manufactured quantity of single yarn duty was payable by the assessee and he cannot escape the liability of paying duty by paying the duty on subsequent item which was not taxable.3. The Additional Commissioner of Excise, after initiating proceedings under Section 11A held that that 11,108 kgs single yarn manufactured by the assessee has not been subject to assessment of duty ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Rtt and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1255; 2002(5)WLN710
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition is filed against the order passed by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal dated 23rd Sept. 1998 in RTT No. 44/97, by which it has reduced the penalty levied on the respondent-assessee under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Entertainment and Advertisements Tax Act, 1957 from Rs. 64,500/- to Rs. 500/-.3. The facts, in brief, leading to this petition are that on 15.11.96 on a surprise checking of respondent Theater M/s. Hari Om Talkies, the Assessing Officer, Viz. the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, found that for different classes of seats in all 129 tickets had been issued improperly inasmuch as the same were not properly stamped by affixing the stamps of Entertainment Tax and had not been entered in the DCR (Daily Collection Report), and on that basis penalty of Rs. 500/- per ticket totalling to Rs. 64,5000/- was imposed.4. On appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal following its earlier judgment in Shyam Kumar R...
Tag this Judgment!ito Vs. Vaibhav Textiles
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN245(Raj)
ORDER1. This appeal has been admitted in terms of the following question :'Whether the learned Tribunal was right in its wisdom to allow the deduction under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though the conditions as laid down or as inserted by the Explanation (aa) were not fulfilled by the assessee ?'2. The assessee-firm filed its return for the assessment year 1990-91 and declared a total income of Rs. 20,339 only.The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued. During the course of assessment, it is noticed that assessee has claimed deduction under section 80HHC of the Act though the articles were sold in India against foreign currency. The assessing officer negatived the claim of deduction under section 8OHHC.3. In appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) followed its earlier order in the case of Anil Exports v. ITO (IT Appeal No. 1811 (J...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC3; 2003(3)WLN339
F.C. Bansal, J.1. The appellant Prem Singh was indicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota in Session Case No. 36/95 for having committed murder of Deepak. He has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302, IPC vide its judgment dated April 6, 1998 to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. Against this judgment of conviction and sentence the present action for filing the appeal has been resorted to by the appellant.2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 11.6.1995 at 11:05 P.M., P.W. 14 Rajendra Singh Rathore, SHO, P.S. Kunhadi, Kota City recorded 'Parcha Bayan' Ex. P. 1 of Smt. Rekha (P.W. 1) W/o Bheru Lal, by caste-Dhobi, R/o Sakatpura, (Kota City) at her house, wherein she stated that today after around 7:30 P.M., she and her nephew Pappu @ Deepak were ironing clothes. At that time Hansraj and Satya Narain quarrelled each other and Sattu chased Hansraj when ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan State Mineral Development Cor ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Raj)440; [2003]261ITR479(Raj)
1. On an application 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 right in holding that a sum of Rs. 19,77,436 was for business, particularly in the light of the letter of the union read with the report of the directors ?'2. The assessee-company claimed deduction of ex gratia payment of Rs. 19,77,436 to its employees during the assessment year 1985-86. The Assessing Officer has negatived the claim as the assessee suffered loss and no outstanding performance has been shown. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also held that the amount is not for the purpose of the business.3. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has considered the report of the directors for the payment in question and considering the reason given for payment of ex gratia bonus, the Tribunal held that th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hukam Chand Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)537; [2003]262ITR373(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1), the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the issue before him was debatable and hence could not be considered as a mistake apparent on the record rectifiable under Section 154, despite the fact that when the Tribunal decided the appeal, the issue was no longer debatable as far as the State of Rajasthan was concerned, in view of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Shiv Raj Bhatia (D. B. I. T. Reference No. 8 of 1992 dated May 1, 1996) ?'2. The assessee is a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation. In the year under consideration, the assessee claimed deduction of 50 per cent, on account of expenditure out of the incentive bonus earned by him. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) without any adjustment...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mali Ram Verma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)539
1. On the application filed under Section 256(1), 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 upholding the order of the learned Dy. CIT(A) on the ground that the issue before him was debatable and hence could not be considered as a mistake apparent on record rectifiable under Section 154 despite the fact that when the Tribunal decided the appeal, the issue was no longer debatable as far as the State of Rajasthan was concerned, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Shiv Raj Bhatia ?' 2. The assessee is a development officer of the LIC. In the year under consideration, the assessee claimed deduction of 50 per cent on account of expenditure out of the incentive bonus earned by him. The return was processed under Section 143(l)(a) without any adjustment being made to the returned income. The AO, however, subsequently withdrew the claim of...
Tag this Judgment!Budha Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN662
Arun Madan, J.1. This writ petition arises out of order dated 24.8.1984 (Annex.4) of the Board of Revenue, dismissing revision/review petition of the petitioner assailing the abatement of appeal. But the present petition has been filed after inordinate delay of five years in the year 1989.2. The circumstances leading to this petition are briefly stated thus. Ramjilal and others (respondent Nos. 5 to 9) instituted a revenue suit on 7.10.1970 before the Asstt. Collector Bandikui claiming legal heirs of Gyarsa and asserting that Gyarsa and Ramsahai were co-tenants to the agricultural lands in dispute bearing Khasra Nos. 2/1 (8 Biswas), 2/2 (14 Biswas), 2/3 (3 Bighas 13 Biswas), 2/4 (2 Biswas), No. 3 (4 Biswas) (total 5 Bighas 1 Biswa) situated in village Dilwarpura, Tehsil Baswa, but they died; that Gyarsa was unmarried and after his death, his share stood devolved on the plaintiff Nos. 4 & 5 being legal heirs. In the suit they asserted that under coercion Budha (petitioner) & Mangla got ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »