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.
In Re: Om Metals and Minerals Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: [2003]43SCL381(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J. 1. The petitioner M/s. Om Metals & Minerals Limited, a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956), having its registered office at Kothari Bhawan, 30-31, New Grain Mandi, Kota, filed this petition under Section 101 of the Act of 1956 for confirmation of the reduction of Share Capital. 2. In the petition the petitioner prays that reduction of capital resolved on by the special resolution set out in para 8 of the petition be confirmed, that to this end all inquiries and directions necessary and proper be made and given; that the proposed minute be approved; and that such further or other orders may kindly be made in the premises as to the Court may deem fit in the interest of the company and its shareholders.3. In para 1 of the petition, the petitioners has given the events in respect of registration of the company. In para 2 the address of the registered office of the company has been given and along ...
Jyoti Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1241; 2003(1)WLC108; 2002(4)WLN717
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 29.3.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order of direction, the respondents be directed to prove appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground under the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment on Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'), on the death of his mother, that took place on 20.12.1998.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-The petitioner's father late Shri Asu Lal was employed in the respondent-Department and he died on 20.2.1988. The petitioner's mother Mohan Kaur was also working on the post of Class IV in the respondent-Department and she died on 20.12.1998 while in service.The case of the petitioner is that after death of his mother, he moved an application before the respondent...
Cit Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)440
N.N. Mathur, J.The instant reference has been made by the Tribunal, Jaipur, under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act at the instance of the revenue seeking opinion of this court on the following questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally right in excluding the additions of Rs. 92,002 and Rs. 17,003 being unexplained investments in the acquisition of gold and silver ornaments from the purview of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons : [1972]83ITR369(SC) was applicable to the present case in respect of the existing provisions relating to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanations so as to legally justify the Tribunal to grant relief to the assessee in terms of the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) with regard to the extent of Rs. 92,902 and Rs. 17,003,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: [2004]265ITR686(Raj)
N.N. Mathur J.1. The instant reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, seeking the opinion of this court on the following substantial question:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of token penalty, below the minimum prescribed by the Act by observing that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the annual return and was the Tribunal right in drawing a right inference from the Central Board of Direct Taxes circulars ?'2. The respondent Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jodhpur, is the person responsible for paying the tax on the income chargeable to tax under the head 'Salaries' to the employees working under him. He is also responsible under Section 206 of the Act of 1961, for deducting tax at source. He is also required to prepare, deliver or cause to be delivered to the prescribed income-tax authority within t...
Dilip Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1244; 2003(1)WLC18
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1997, vide judgment dt. 27.2.99, for the offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC, and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment on the first count, and to rigorous imprisonment for three years, and a fine of Rs. 500, in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment, on the second count. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.1.97 one Shanti Lal submitted a written report to S.H.O. Nathdwara alleging inter alia that Manju was married to the appellant four years back in accordance with community customs. On the day of information, he received information, whereupon he came, and found that Manju has been burnt to death by pouring kerosene by the husband, the appellant. On this report a case under Section 304-B I.P.C. was register...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Rajesh Solvex Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: [2004]136STC568(Raj); 2003(1)WLC14; 2002(4)WLN657
N.N. Mathur, J.1. By two separate writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the State of Rajasthan seeks direction to quash the common judgment dated July 24, 1998 passed by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal and to restore the order dated June 18, 1997 passed by the assessing authority.2. It would be trite to notice the facts in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2280 of 1999. The respondent-company is engaged in manufacturing solvent extracted oil having its plant and industry at Kesarpura, Sheoganj. The company is registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RST Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CST Act'). The State of Rajasthan with a view to promote edible oil industries issued a notification dated December 26, 1986 in exercise of powers under Section 8(5) of the CST Act extending the benefit to certain categories of the industries in the form of concessional rate...
Cit Vs. Dy. Housing Commissioner, Raj. Housing Board, Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)591
N. N. Mathur, J.Instant reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been made by the Tribunal, Jaipur, seeking opinion of this court on the following substantial question :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of token penalty, below the minimum prescribed by the Act by observing that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the annual return and was the Tribunal right in drawing a right inference from the CBDT circulars?'2. The respondent Dy. Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jodhpur, is the person responsible for paying the tax on the income chargeable to tax under the head 'Salaries' to the employees working under him. He is also responsible under section 206 of the Act of 1961, for deducting tax at source. He is also required to prepare, deliver or cause to be delivered to the prescribed income-tax authority within the prescribed time after the end of the each financial yea...
Smt. Pawan Bhargava Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC765; 2002(5)WLN673
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The grievance expressed in the instant writ petition by the petitioner is that the relief of gratuity was declined to her by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal on the ground that it was barred by Article 137 of the Limitation Act. According to the learned Tribunal the application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act 1989 (for short '1989 Act') was filed after inordinate delay.2. After having heard rival submission and on carefully scanning the material on record, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is well settled that the cause of action for the retiral benefits is recurring and the provisions contained in the Limitation Act are not applicable to such cases. Even on the ground of delay and laches the claim of retiral benefits cannot be dismissed.3. Undeniably the respondent Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan is an aided institu...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Milap Textile Mills
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Raj)119; [2003]264ITR451(Raj)
1. This reference application at the instance of Revenue has been filed under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, seeking opinion of this Court on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a firm carrying on the business of processing of grey cloth. The AO had completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 6,53,185 against the returned income of Rs. 4,63,511. On appeal by the assessee, CIT(A) reduced the income to Rs. 4,62,430. On appeal by the Department, the Tribunal by order dt. 30th Oct., 1987, modified the income and determined it at Rs. 5,62,430. Thus, an addition of Rs. 1,00,000 was made. The AO initiated proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,04,954 as he found that the explanation given by the assessee was not bona fide and genuine. The appeal preferred by the assessee was r...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Badrilal Chaturbhuj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: [2004]265ITR329(Raj)
1. This reference application at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been filed seeking opinion of this court on the following questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) even after giving clear finding that the assessee made a punishable default under Section 271(1)(c) ?2. Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on the ground that under similar circumstances no penalty was levied in the case of a sister concern ?' 2. In the proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, a penalty of Rs. 19,320 was levied. The Commissioner of Income-tax confirmed the penalty. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that out of the total addition of Rs. 29,267, penalty was rightly imposed on Rs. 24,267 but the addition of the balance of Rs. 5,000 di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »