Rajasthan Court January 2003 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.
ishwardas and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Raj)444; [2004]265ITR599(Raj)
M.R. Calla, J. 1. All these three special appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dt. 22nd Feb., 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge. Since the facts and questions involved in these cases are identical, we propose to decide all these appeals by this common judgment and order as under. 2. The appellants herein i.e., original petitioners had received the Form 15H under the IT Act on 1st April, 1999, as had been sent by the recipient of the interest on 31st March, 1999. The question, therefore, arose as to whether the original petitioners were defaulting assessees or not because they failed to deduct the tax at source as on 31st March, 1999. The ITO (TDS) Hanumangarh, therefore, gave notices to the petitioners on 26th May, 1999, mentioning therein that they were required to show-cause as to why their case should not be referred to CIT, Bikaner headquarters at Jaipur/Jt. CIT, Bikaner, for levy of penalty with the further mention that the reply, if any, should reach t...
Neeraj Kant and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj929; 2003(2)WLC421; 2003(1)WLN433
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.Brief facts of the case are that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission Advertised 19 posts of Legal Assistant. It is stated in the advertisement that number of vacancies can be increased or decreased and for that, no further advertisement will be issued. Ultimately, the number of vacancies was increased to 61. As per the procedure, the written tests were held on 5th and 6th December 1998. The petitioner No. 1 Neeraj Kant and petitioner No. 2 Balvinder Singh secured 81 and 82 marks respectively in the written tests. The petitioners were called for interview for personality test by Viva-voce examinations on 29.4.1999. In the interview both the petitioners secured 6 marks, whereas minimum marks required for declaring to have passed the selection test were 7. According to petitioners, though the petitioners secured much higher marks in written tests than the marks secured by candidates who were selected in written tests but were declared ...
Smt. Vimlesh Chouhan Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2111; 2003(2)WLC492; 2003(1)WLN167
TATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. These writ petitions are decided by this common judgment as there are common questions of facts and laws are involved in these petitions.3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4178/2002 has been filed by the Rajasthan Shikshak Sangh (Sanadhya) through its National Secretary Shri Kishan Gopal Joshi; whereas other writ petitions have been filed by private individual persons challenging the order of transfer, passed by the District Education Officer (Primary Education), transferring the petitioners engaged in primary education in various schools situated at different places but within the State of Rajasthan.4. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the orders of transfer are without jurisdiction on the ground that though earlier subject of primary education was with the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan but, the State Government decided to transfer the subject of Primary Education in the State of Rajasthan to the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ganganagar Sahkari Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)407; [2004]265ITR540(Raj)
1. The Tribunal, Jaipur 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 law in holding that the deduction under Section 80P of the IT Act should be allowed before set-off of unabsorbed losses of earlier years ?'2. It is agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the instant reference stands concluded by the decision of the apex Court in CIT v. Kotagiri Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory Ltd. : [1997]224ITR604(SC) as such, the question deserves to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.3. The respondent-assessee Ganganagar Sahkari Spinning Mills Ltd., Hanumangarh is a co-operative society. The assessee initially filed its return on 29th Oct., 1990, declaring loss. On 17th Oct., 1992, the return was revised by reducing the loss to a sum of Rs. 4,78,72,532 against the sum of Rs. 5,38,73,220 in the original return. The assessee...
Official Liquidator of Amfort Agro Finance Ltd. Vs. Raj Prakash Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: [2004]50SCL292(Raj)
ORDER1. None present for the respondents despite service of the notices. It is not in dispute that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are guarantors. They have not been served. The company application as regards to these respondents is consigned to record with liberty to official liquidator to apply for revival thereof, in case the amount of loan is not recovered from the respondent No. 1.2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the memo of application. This application has been filed by the Official Liquidator of M/s. Amfort Agro Finance Ltd. (In liquidation) under Sections 446 and 477 of the Companies Act, 1956 and prayer has been made therein to summon respondent and to examine him under Section 477 of the Act aforesaid on oath in order to fix up the liability with regard to the amount of Rs. 10,518 as on 27-9-1999 plus further interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In the alternate the prayer has been made for decree of the amount aforesaid.3. The respondent despite service has no...
Cit Vs. Ganganagar Mills
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN825(Raj)
ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act should be allowed before set-off of unabsorbed losses of earlier years ?'2. It is agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the instant reference stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Kotagiri Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory Ltd. : [1997]224ITR604(SC) as such, the question deserves to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.3. The respondent-assessee Ganganagar Sahkari Spinning Mills Ltd., Hanumangarh is a Co-operative Society. The assessee initially filed its return on 29-10-1990 declaring loss. On 17-1-1992, the return was revised by reducing the loss to a sum of Rs. 4,78,72,532 against the sum of Rs. 5,38,73,220 in the...
Ram Niwas Soni Vs. Jaipur Nagaur Aanchalik GramIn Bank
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1349; 2003(2)WLC416
Madan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred before this Court challenging the judgment & decree dt. 21.5.1988 of learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Appeal No. 13/88 confirming the judgment and decree dt. 7.2.87 of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 866/1984. The appeal was admitted on 26.11.1988 by this Court in view of the following substantial questions of law which had arisen for consideration of this Court :-'(1) Whether, the order dated 20th February, 1982, whereby the services of the appellant as Manager, were terminated was an order of discharge & of simpliciter or was passed by way of punishment?(2) Whether the letter (Ex.5) dated 12th February, 1982 is the foundation for the order (Ex.3) dated 20th February, 1982?'2. The controversy which had arisen as briefly stated was that the appellant-plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit for declaration seeking the relief inter-alia that the order of his reversion...
Kantilal JaIn Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1698; 2003(2)WLC792
Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet for the charges mentioned hereinbelow :- 'While working as Head Cashier (Offg) at our surana market, Pali Branch, you also performed the work in Agricultural Loan Section viz. processing of loan applications issuing of sanction letters and verification of spots. It is alleged that you have demanded and accepted on 10.8.1989 in the branch premises a sum of Rs. 1000/- as illegal gratification from Shri Pira Ram Choudhary, one of the borrower resident of village Guda Aindla (Pali) for delivery of sanction letter and facilitating disbursal of an agricultural loan to him alongwith his three brothers viz. Chamna, Pukha and Ghessa sons of Shri Rataji for fitting of pipeline amounting to Rs. 21,600/-.' 3. The enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and Enquiry Officer submitted, enquiry report to the disciplinary authority, copy of which is placed on reco...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Premlata and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC120; 2005ACJ1137; 2004(5)WLC763
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.5.1999.2. Mr. V.D. Dadhich, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition itself contending that the petitioner could have filed an appeal taking leave of the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act, 1988') and in case he has not made any such attempt, his conduct debars him from filing a writ petition for the reason that if the statute provides for a remedy of appeal with a precondition of seeking leave of the Tribunal, writ petition is not maintainable.3. On the other hand, Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his legitimate right on such technical ground.4. I ha...
Yakub Ali Gopal Singh and Party Vs. Dy. Cit and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Raj)104
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.The controversy involved in this case is very narrow as the assessee has raised the grievance that the case has been reopened without giving the assessee the copy of reasons for reopening.2. Without contesting the case, Shri Bhandawat, learned counsel appearing the revenue, has made a submission that the revenue will supply the reasons for reopening to the petitioner and limitation for filing the return shall apply from the date of supplying the reasons.3. In view of the statement made by Shri Bhandawat, nothing survives in this petition. The petition is, therefore, disposed of finally with the direction that the assessee may appear before the assessing authority, Bikaner, by or on 23-1-2003, and the assessing authority is requested to supply him the reasons for reopening and the assessee shall have a right to file the return reckoning the period of limitation....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »