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.
Darshan Singh Vs. the Judge, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR600]; RLW2004(1)Raj571; 2003(1)WLC106; 2002(4)WLN712
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. An application was submitted under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'Act of 1947') by the applicant stating therein that during the conciliation proceedings which were going on for regularisation and fixation of the wages of the employee, the employer terminated the services of employee which is in violation of Section 25(f), 25(G), 25(H) and Rule 77-78 of the Act of 1947, therefore, dispute may be determined. The Labour Court, Sriganganagar held that unless a reference is made under Section 10 of the Act of 1947, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 33-A of the Act of 1947.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court delivered in the case of Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankar Prasad (1) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that when the retrenchment order was passed during the pendency of conciliation proceedings, it amounts to...
Cit Vs. Indo Continental Hotel and Resorts and Hotel Man Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN58(Raj)
ORDEROn an application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in treating the hotel building and various fittings and equipments installed therein as 'plant' for the purpose of allowing depreciation and investment allowance ?'2. The assessee runs the Hotel Man Singh and claimed depreciation at the rate applicable in the case of 'plant' as the hotel building is a 'plant'. That has been negatived by the assessing officer. In appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, Jaipur, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have allowed the claim of the assessee and allowed the depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent treating the hotel building as a 'plant'.3. None puts in appearance on behalf of the assessee.4. The learned counsel for the revenue has brought ...
Sawai Madhopur Oil and Pulse Industries and ors. Vs. State of Rajastha ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC419; 2003(1)WLN255
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. A bunch of 75 writ petitions were filed challenging the vires of certain provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). the petitioners in the respective writ petitions have prayed as follows:(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the incorporation of Section 54(ka) and Sub-Sections (4) to (9) in Section 69 of the Excise Act may be declared ultra vires and be sruck down.(b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the amendment in the Excise Act, 1950, by incorporating Section 9-B may be declared ultra vires and be struck down.(c) By further appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order in the respective writ petitions passed by the respondents may be declared invalid and quashed and set aside.(d) Pending decision, if any further order is passed or action is taken prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, the same may also be quashed and set aside.On behalf of the petitioners, we heard S/Shri N...
Cit Vs. Badrilal Chaturbhuj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)165
By the CourtThis reference application at the instance of 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 of 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 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 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 confirmed the penalty. The 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 did not merit imposition of any penalty. The Tribunal found that on the. assuran...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. C.A.T. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj576
Mathur, J.1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the Union of India seeking direction to quash the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dated 06.12.2001 whereby it allowed the Original Application of the second respondent Kumari Prabha Joshi and directed the petitioner to consider her application for appointment on compassionate ground.2. Two brothers namely deceased Gopal Lal Joshi and Shyamlal Joshi were working with Railways. Gopal Lal Joshi who was working on the post of Gateman at Nawa Railway Station in district Nagaur expired on 21st October, 1994. The second respondent Kumar Prabha Joshi, moved an application in the year 1999 claiming herself to be an adopted daughter of her uncle deceased Gopal Lal Joshi for appointment on compassionate ground. The competent authority ordered an enquiry into the matter. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report which reveal that natural father of the g...
Nathu Lal and ors. Vs. Smt. Gulab Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC130; 2002(5)WLN552
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court dated 22.9.2001, by which it has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 18.3.1997.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondnet-plaintiffs filed a suit against the appellant-defendants in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nathdwara for permanent injunction on the averments that they were the owners and in possession of the suit property, on which the appellant-defendants were intending to raise construction, thus, they should be restrained from raising any construction thereon. The appellant-defendants filed the written-statement denying the title of the respondent-plaintiffs and claiming their title over the land in dispute. The trial Court, on the basis of pleadings, framed large number of issues including as to whether the plaintiffs were having the title and possession over the suit property and whet...
R.P. Khunteta Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN420(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 is correct in law in holding that the incentive bonus received by the assessee from Life Insurance Corpn. of India constitutes income from salary 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that no expenditure is allowable to the assessee against earning of incentive bonus, except standard deduction under section 16(1) of the Income Tax Act ?'2. The assessee is a salaried employee of the Life Insurance Corpn. of India. In addition to his salary and other allowances, the assessee received incentive bonus of Rs. 1,00,599, Rs. 96,968, Rs. 1,34,581 and Rs. 1,07,600 for the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, respectively, from the Life Insurance Corpn. fo...
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and anr. Vs. Judge, Industrial Tri ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC102; 2002(5)WLN230
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition undr Articles 226 and 27 of the Constitution of India: has been filed by the petitioners on 14.3.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment and award dated 24.8.2000 (Annex. 12) passed by the respondent No. 1 Judge, Industrial Tribunal Bikaner by which respondent No. 2 Ganesh Ram was regularised in service with effect from 1.4.1982, be quashed and set aside.2. The case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows:The respondent No. 2 Ganesh Ram was engaged as casual daily rated workman on 10.9.1979 and thereafter, on 31.5.1980 he was engaged as work-charged employee.The case of the petitioners is that so far as the grant of regular pay scale and regularisation of services of work-charged employees is concerned, the Vidyut Board has from time to time constituted Screening Committee for adjudging the suitability of the workmen who had completed two ye...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Elegant Homes Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR232(Raj)
1. The present appeal had been admitted in terms of the following questions : '1. Whether the judgment passed by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal suffers from perversity or not ?2. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in its wisdom to apply the Rajasthan PWD rates for working out the cost of construction of the said property for income-tax purpose, instead of CPWD rates 3. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,400 by holding that when entries find place in the regular cash book, then no addition can be made in the block assessment until there is evidence to the contrary 4. Whether the addition on the basis of examination of the regular books of account seized during the course of search is out of the purview of the block assessments ?'5. A search and seizure operation was carried out at the residential and business premises of the director of the assessee-company on November 9, 1995, and some incri...
Gulzarilal Rawat Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR176(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, this court directed the Tribunal to refer the following common questions for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the business in the name and style of Rawat Electricals at Ramganjmandi belonged to Shri Gulzarilal Rawat and not to Shri Suresh Kumar Rawat Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 8,000 was not an investment made by Shri Suresh Kumar Rawat in the concern of Rawat Electricals at Ramganjmandi and was made by his father Gulzarilal ?' 2. Since common facts are involved, we answer all the four questions by this common order. In compliance with the directions of this court, the aforesaid questions have been referred for our opinion.3. The Income-tax Officer vide his order dated September 17, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »