Rajasthan Court January 2003 Judgments
Chandrapal Bagga Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Raj)185; [2003]261ITR67(Raj)
1. The appeal was admitted in terms of the following question :'Whether the mistake committed by counsel in advising the assessee and the assessee on such advice submitted return omitting a particular item to be shown in the return can be said to be an act committed by the assessee in concealing deliberately the item of income and thus is liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1992-93. The assessee-appellant is an individual and is carrying on the business of transport. In the preceding year, the assessee was a partner in Gautam Roadways but became a proprietor from the assessment year 1991-92. He filed the return on September 21, 1992. The appellant has sold his immovable property on April 26, 1991, for Rs. 5 lakhs and purchased two flats, one on May 6,1991, and another on May 29, 1991, for a total sum of Rs. 5,56,000. The capital gain comes to Rs. 1,40,000. In the original return, the assessee claimed that as he has...
Tag this Judgment!Asgar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1997; RLW2003(2)Raj1209; 2003(2)WLC53
Bansal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 18, 1984 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellants Asgar and Mazid as under :-Asgar and Mazid eachu/Sec. 399 IPCOne year's rigorousimprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to furtherundergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.u/Sec. 402 IPCOne year's rigorousimprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to furtherundergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.3. According to prosecution, both the appellants alongwith co- accused Munna who has absconded during trial, were arrested by the SHO, P.S. Kumher (Distt. Bharatpur) PW-6 Narain Sahai and his party from Kundewali Dharamshala Situated in Kurnher town on 29.3.82 at about 2:00 A.M. and one axe, two kattas (country made pistol) and three hand grenades were also seized from the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Alok Enterprises Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Raj199; RLW2003(2)Raj1264; 2003(2)WLC405
Misra, J.1. The petitioner herein-M/s. Alok Enterprises claims to be the auction purchaser of an Industrial unit by the name of M/s Vin-Cum Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd. situated at Jaipur, from the respondent No. 1 Rajasthan Financial Corporation ('R.F.C.' for short) and has therefore sought a direction to the respondent No. 1 to issue acceptance letter of the tender, execute the necessary documents and handover the possession of the aforesaid unit to the petitioner without any further delay.2. Hence the question which requires determination in this writ petition is whether the auction sale can be held to be complete in favour of the petitioner so as to direct the respondents to execute the sale-deed and hand over possession of the industry in favour of the petitioner, although the terms and conditions of the offer and acceptance in regard to the sale had still been at the stage of negotiation which had not reached a final stage.3. The petitioner has sought the desired relief on th...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Development Bank of India Vs. Solartech (India) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: [2003]47SCL550(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J. 1. This petition under Sections 433(e), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 is filed by the Industrial Development Bank of India and prayer has been made therein for a direction for winding up of the respondent company. This winding up of the respondent company is sought for on the ground of its inability to pay the debts of the Bank.2. The petition was presented on 18-4-2000. On 13th July, 2000 the court has been pleased to issue show-cause notice to the respondent company. The notices sent for the date were received unserved. The notices were received with the report that earlier at the given address the registered office of the company was there but now the landlord of the premises is occupying the same. On 31st July, 2000 the court pleased to issue fresh notices to the respondent company both by ordinary process as well as by registered post. The notice which has been sent by registered post AD has been received unserved. The notice sent through ordinary pr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R.G. Ispat Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Raj)369; [2004]266ITR327(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referredthe following question for our consideration :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erredin law in holding that the building in question was covered within the meaning of the term 'Plant' for the purposes of allowance of depreciation and investment allowance ?'2. The assessee-company claimed before the ITO that the building wherein the plant and machineries are housed should be treated as a 'plant' and that depreciation and investment allowance be allowed thereon. The ITO rejected the claim.3. In appeal, the CIT(A) set aside the matter to the file of the AO to be decided on the basis of the principles laid down in the order of the Tribunal in case of the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78. In a fresh order, again the ITO has disallowed the claim.4. In appeal before the CIT(A), it was contended by the assessee that the nature of the construction was spe...
Tag this Judgment!Tribhuwan K. Pandia Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR286]; 2003(2)WLC411; 2003(1)WLN445
Garg, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and award did, 5.3.90 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur by which the order dtd. 12.12.82 passed by the respondent No. 2 by which services of the petitioner were terminated was set aside and he was further ordered to be reinstated in service, but on back wages, he was given only Rs. 5000/- and in this writ petition the order by which he was given Rs. 5000/-as back wages has been challenged. 2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under : (i) That the petitioner was conductor in the employment of respondent No. 2 (Divisional Manager, RSRTC, Udaipur and respondent No. 3 RSRTC, Jaipur. The petitioner's services were terminated on 12.12.82. Against the termination of his services, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the State of Rajasthan was pleased to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur (respo...
Tag this Judgment!Sajna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj737; 2003(2)WLC390; 2003(1)WLN452
Chauhan, J. 1. This petition has been filed for issuing direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner in the A.N.M. Training Course (Mahila Swastiya Karyakarta Prashikshan) in OBC category in pursuance of the advertisement dated 27.9.2001.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner applied for admission in the said course in pursuance of the said advertisement dated 27.9.2001 (Annx. 1) in General Category though she belongs to OBC category. Subsequently she was called for councilling vide letter dated 5.1.2002 (Annx.6) on 22.1.2002, but was not admitted to the said course. Subsequently, she had been making representations to consider her candidature in OBC category as certain seats of that category were lying vacant. As the respondents did not pay any heed, hence this petition.3. Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that undoubtedly petitioner had applied, in pursuance of the said advertisement, in GeneralCategor...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chand Tolani Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Raj213; 2003(3)WLC290
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19-12-1997, by which the land in dispute had been allotted to the Society and further for quashing the order fixing the rate at Rs. 290/- per square yard for the said land. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner claims to be a Member of Sindhi Samaj and has alleged that the allotment of the land in dispute had been made in favour of the Society by the respondent Rajasthan Housing Board vide order dated 19-12-1997 on collusion with the respondents, i.e. office bearers of the Society, the Chairman and other officers of the Rajasthan Housing Board. Relief sought is that the said society be restrained from raising any construction for school or Community Centre. This Court, from time to time, had passed certain interim orders, and earlier had directed that the matter shall be heard finally in Sept., 2002, but for paucity of time, it could not be heard and d...
Tag this Judgment!Modilal and anr. Vs. L.Rs. of Chatra Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj2001; 2003(2)WLC509
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 27.1.1988 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment (Annex. 2) dated 7.10.1987 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali by which he accepted the revision petition of the respondent No. 1 Chatra Ram (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased)'. (now represented by his LRs.) and set aside the judgment and decree dated 2.12.1982 passed by the learned Dept Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Ball) by which learned Dept Relief Court accepted the claim of the petitioners filed under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1957') for Rs. 800/- in favour of the petitioner No. 1 Modi Lal and for Rs. 1091/- in favour of the petitioner No. 2 Kheta Ram, be quashed and set aside.2. It arises in the following circumstances :-The petitioner No....
Tag this Judgment!Kesu Ram Vs. Zila Parishad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1323; 2003(3)WLC53
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.4.99 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner was an aspirant of being appointing as a teacher grade III in pursuance of advertisement dated 15.6.98 issued by Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar. However, the petitioner did not find place in merit and his candidature was rejected and he was not given appointment.3. The sole contention of the petitioner is that while evaluating him merit as per Rule 266 marks obtained by him at Secondary Examination which he has passed in 1997 after completing his Post Graduate in 1990 and B.Ed. in 1993 by way of improving his percentage of marks over original percentage of marks obtained by him in Secondary Examination in the year 1983 ought to have been taken in consideration. The learned counsel contended that there is nothing in the Rules which suggests that marks obtained in the first examinatio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »