Rajasthan Court August 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.
National Coal Corporation Vs. Appellate Authority, Industrial and Fina ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC104; [2004]122CompCas355(Raj); RLW2003(4)Raj2437; 2002(5)WLC944
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The petitioners are the Small Scale Industries situated at Kota. The petitioner No. 1 was supplying coal. Petitioner No. 2 undertook the work of repairing and maintaining the machines. Petitioner No. 3 manufactured machinery parts. Petitioner No. 4 supplied machinery parts on credit basis. Petitioner No. 5 also manufactured machinery parts as an ancillary to the J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Petitioner No. 6 also undertook the work of repairing and maintenance of machines at Kota Unit. Petitioner No. 7 was also doing the same work at Jhalawar Unit. Petitioner No. 8 was supplying machinery components to the Units of J.K. Synthetics Ltd., Kota and Jhalawar.2. The petitioners in their petition have also shown the details of dues against J.K. Synthetics Ltd. in para No. 5.3. Upon reference been made to the Board of Industrial and Financial Rehabilitation (BIFR) under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, the Act of 1985) on 2.4....
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G.D. Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Raj)169
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court :'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. Shiwai Bhatia (DB IT Ref. No. 8 of 1992 dt. 1st May, 1996) '2. While processing the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, the AO made disallowance of Rs. 12,054 claimed as deduction by the assessee from incentive bonus earned by him, in his capacity as Development Officer of LIC. The assessee moved an application under Section ...
Gajraj Chand Bhandari Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj557; 2003(1)WLC51
Sharma, J.1. The petitioner, who is an retired Government employee of the State of Rajasthan in the instant writ petition challenged the decision of rejecting the financial assistance of an amount of Rs. 91,672.99/- vide letter dated July 25, 1995 with a further direction to reimburse full amount of Rs. 1,42,672.99 paid by him to the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi for Coronary artery By-pass Grafting done on July, 1994 on a recommendation made by the Medical Board constituted by the Principal, SMS Medical College, Jaipur.2. The petitioner served the State of Rajasthan in Cooperative Department and retired as Deputy Registrar in the year 1989. The petitioner in the year 1994 suddenly attacked by IHC triple Vessel disease at Jodhpur. The doctors at Jodhpur recommended the case to the SMS Hospital. The Principal SMS Medical College Jaipur vide letter dated June 2, 1994 constituted Board and the board was requested to submit report on the following lines.-(a) Whethe...
Cit Vs. Dinesh Lahoti
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN500(Raj)
On an application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Shivraj Bhatia 133 CTR 379 (Raj) the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the disallowance of expenses against incentive bonus received by the assessee from LIC was outside the scope of prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a)?'2. While processing the return under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessing officer made disallowance of Rs. 17,170 claimed as deduction by the assessee from incentive bonus earned by him, in his capacity as Development Officer of LIC. The assessee moved an application under section 154 seeking rectification of the intimation to the effect that incentive bonus was separate from salary income and hence that expenditure incurred ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dinesh Lahoti
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)554
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Shivraj Bhatia the Tribunal was justified in holding that the disallowance of expenses against incentive bonus received by the assessee from LIC was outside the scope of prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) ?'2. While processing the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, the AO made disallowance of Rs. 17,170 claimed as deduction by the assessee from incentive bonus earned by him, in his capacity as Development Officer of LIC. The assessee moved an application under Section 154 seeking rectification of the intimation to the effect that inventive bonus was separate from salary income and hence that expenditure incurred to earn the same should have been allowed. The AO rejected the ap...
Official Liquidator of Amfort Agro Finance Ltd. Vs. Chhittar Luhar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: [2003]46SCL31(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the company application, reply filed thereto by the respondent and the rejoinder filed by the Official Liquidator. In this application under Sections 446 and 477 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the prayers made by the Official Liquidator of M/s. Amfort Agro Finance Ltd. (in liquidation) read as under:(i) The respondent(s) may be summoned and may be examined under Section 477 of the Companies Act of 1956 on oath in order to fix up the liability with regard to the aforesaid amount and order for payment of Rs. 3,25,360.00 (Rupees Three lacs twenty five thousand three hundred sixty only) as on Sept. 1999 plus further interest @ 12% on the amount thereafter till the date of payment may be passed in favour of the applicant Petitioner and the Respondents may be held liable for payment jointly and severally.(ii) In the alternative the application may kindly be tried under Section 446 of the ...
Prem Raj Bohra and Etc. Vs. Jairoopa and ors. Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj128; 2003(1)WLC495; 2003(2)WLN383
Arun Kumar, C.J. 1. This batch of appeals and D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3879/2001 raise common questions of law and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. The only additional point raised in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3839/2001 is that it challenges vires of Section 3(36) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) read with Rule 3, Sub-rule (9) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence Against Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'No Confidence Motion Rules') on the ground that these are violative of Articles 14 and 243-R of the Constitution of India. Though, several legal issues have been raised in these cases, the foremost point is, as to whether nominated members of a Municipal Board, who have been meetings of the Board, should be counted in total no confidence in the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Board.2. As per facts on record, no confidence m...
Amrit Nahta Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2003(152)ELT301(Raj); RLW2004(1)Raj573; 2003(1)WLC31
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. This Special Appeal is filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 12th Sept., 1995 by which the writ petition filed by the original petitioner, whose legal representatives are the present appellants, was dismissed. 2. The facts, relevant for the present purposes, are that on 20th July, 1982 the Central Govt. in exercise of its powers under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 had notified certain exemptions/concessions in Custom Duty payable on import of motor vehicle by a handicapped person which has been specially adapted for his use, in pursuance of which the petitioner made an application for grant of exemption certificate before the competent authority on 19/20th Oct., 1982. According to the petitioner, his left arm was permanently disabled having suffered paralysis. On 9-12-82, a querry was directed to the petitioner concerning his income, which was replied on 18-12-82, however the application was returned vide letter dated 31-5-1983 with an advis...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kota Co-operative Marketing Society
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Raj)398
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, 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 allowing claim under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961, notwithstanding the fact that the business was not wholly done with the members only ?'2. The assessee is a co-operative society deriving income from sale of fertilizers, agricultural commodities, pesticides, controlled sugar etc. It also derives income from tractor, matador, truck, godown rent, interest and receipts.On the basis of computation furnished by the assessee, the assessee had claimed relief under Section 80P(2) at Rs. 4,75,999. The ITO, however, required it to furnish the working of the net income from the business done with the members only. The assessee, in compliance of the directions of the ITO, has given working of the income earned in dealings with members at Rs. 76,723, The ITO...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kota Co-operative Marketing Society
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: [2003]262ITR452(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 and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing claim under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, notwithstanding the fact that the business was not wholly done with the members only ?'2. The assessee is a co-operative society deriving income from sale of fertilizers, agricultural commodities, pesticides, controlled sugar, etc. It also derives income from tractor, matador, truck, godown rent, interest and receipts.3. On the basis of computation furnished by the assessee, the assessee had claimed relief under Section 80P(2) at Rs. 4,75,999. The Income-tax Officer, however, required it to furnish the working of the net income from the business done with the members only. The assessee, in compliance with the directions of the Income-tax Officer, has given working of the income e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »