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.
Cit Vs. Abressive India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN389(Raj)
ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur by order dated 12-6-1998 has referred following question under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT) was legally justified in holding that deductions under sections 80HH and 80I are admissible without deducting investment allowance2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in law in holding that depreciation on generator is admissible at the rate of 30% as against 15% claimed and allowed during the course of assessment proceedings?'2. It is not in dispute that first question has been answered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Surendra Textiles . The second question has been answered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Agarwal Transformers (P) Ltd. .3. In view of this, the aforesaid first question stands answered in favour of...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Prakash Chitra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Raj)295; (2003)2GLR1275; [2004]265ITR271(Raj)
1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, on the instance of the CIT, Bikaner, seeking direction to the Tribunal, Jaipur, to make reference of the following question for the opinion of this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961, by holding that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court reported at CIT v. Pratap Singh Amro Singh Rajendra Singh is not applicable even though the AO had found books of accounts defective and had made an addition of Rs. 25,000 and had erroneously disregarded the report of Departmental Valuation Officer to whom reference was made by himself ?'2. The instant application pertains to the asst. yr. 1993-94. The respondent-assessee during the assessment proceedings noticed that Departmental Valuer as well as registered valuer of the assessee determined the cost of construction in the cinema building at Rs. 7,...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Suncity Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2003
Reported in: 2003(161)ELT140(Raj)
1. This application under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is filed by the Union of India seeking direction to Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the CEGAT') to refer the question of law as set out in para No. 8 of form No. E.A. 6 under Rule 8 for the opinion of this Court.2. The fact giving rise to the application are that respondent M/s. Suncity Synthetics Limited is engaged in manufacture of plastic chips. On 19-12-1997 the Revenue Authorities visited the premises of the factory and found that 3713 Kgs. of final product was short as compared to their statutory record. Thus, duty was imposed amounting to Rs. 55,695/-. A penalty was also imposed of the equal amount in accordance with provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal impressed with the contention that the shortage was found because of calculation error and reduced the penalty to the sum of Rs.15,000/-.3. It is contended by Mr. Vijay Agga...
Madanlal and ors. Vs. Bhanwarlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)21; II(2003)BC551; RLW2003(2)Raj719; 2003(2)WLC452; 2003(1)WLN327
Joshi, J. 1. The instant revision petition has been filed Under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 20th September, 2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali in 'Bhanwarlal v. Sargam Apuntex Ltd. and Ors.', whereby cognizance against the petitioners No. 1 Madanlal, No. 2 Anoop Kumar and PW.3 Pradeep Kumar was taken Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the Act hereinafter) in relation to cheques Exs. 2, 3 and 4. After intimation, Ex.7 was received from the bank about their dis- honour.2. The learned counsel for the revisionst-petitioners argued that the petitioners were not in-charge of and responsible to conduct of the company at the relevant time and no prima facie case for proceeding against them under the said section is made out. The learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his argument :-(1) K.P.G. Nair v. Jindal Menthol India Ltd.. (2) State of Haryana v. Brij Lal and ...
S.S. JaIn Subodh Shiksha Samiti and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Raj297; RLW2003(2)Raj944; 2003(2)WLC299
Sharma, J.1. All these matters relate to the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Rajasthan at the request of Jaipur Development Authority (for short JDA) for widening the stretch of Bhawani Singh Road from Rambagh Circle to Indira Circle in the city of Jaipur. The petitioners in all these 20 writ petitions have impugned the notification dated July 10, 2002, notice dated September 16, 2002, another Notification dated November 2, 2002 and the notice dated November 2, 2002 issued under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short the LA Act).2. Bhawani Singh Road, which stretches from Bais Godown to Indira Circle is a part of the Main artery of Jaipur which runs from Ajmer Road' in the West to 'Jawahar Nagar Bye-Pass' in the East of Jaipur. The stretch in dispute relates only to the part of the Road which is only 60 ft. wide. The rest of the Road in most of the places, is WO ft. wide and in some of the places 165 ft. wide. JDA felt that the part of the Road which is 60 ft. ...
Vasudeo Pujari Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2118; 2003(3)WLC543; 2003(1)WLN108
Garg, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 19.8.1992 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Judgment and order dated 18.6.1990 (Annex. 17) passed by the respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan by which the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the recovery of Rs. 39,900/-, was dismissed, be quashed and set aside and further, the petitioner be allowed pay and allowances of the post of Manager (Finance) from 1.11.1985 to 26.5.1987 without deducting the pension etc. etc.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :-The petitioner was working as Accounts Officer in the service of the State of Rajasthan from where he retired on 31.3.1980 and he was paid 75% of his pension by way of provisional pension and this continued to be so till November, 1980.It was further submitted by the petitioner that while he was working ...
Narendra and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1995; RLW2003(2)Raj752; 2003(2)WLC461; 2003(1)WLN467
Joshi, J. 1. The instant Criminal Revision No. 1016 is against the order of the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur passed on 26.10.2002 in Sessions Case No. 59/2000. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge had ordered to frame charges against the accused-persons under Section 285, 286, 304 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts of the case are that the Station House Officer, Surajpole, Udaipur got a Parcha Bayan recorded on 20.11.1999 that Macsen Laboratories situated at Tekri, Udaipur has caught fire. Before he reached the said laboratory, the fire had already been extinguished. He found the body of a burnt person in a room of the said laboratory. The said labourer was working at Distillator machine. The deceased Naval Ram Gameti and Lalooram had put the Toluene oil in the machine and there were toluene fumes which are inflammable. The labourer went inside the room to make the switch off of the machine and died inside the room. As per site report,...
Amritlal and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC614; 2004ACJ1868; RLW2003(2)Raj779; 2003(2)WLC22; 2003(1)WLN512
Garg, J. 1. All the above mentioned civil misc. appeals filed by the owners of the truck in question are being decided b this common judgment as all of them have arisen out of the same accident and in all of them identical and common questions of law and facts are involved. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 635/1998 2. This civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 27.7.1998 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur (for short 'Claims Tribunal) in MACT Case No. 288/95 by which the learned Claims Tribunal, on account of death of Chutraram, passed an award of Rs. 76,500/- in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 4 to 6, namely, Smt. Madki, Jetha Ram and Bhinjaram respectively, who are LRs of deceased Chutraram and against the present appellant No. 1 Amrit Lal, owner of the truck in question and the National Insurance Company Limited (respondent No. 3) (for short 'Insurance Company') and Railway Administration (...
Dr. V.N. Pradhan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2108; 2003(2)WLC699; 2003(1)WLN104
GARG, J. 1. This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner through his counsel on 2.9.2002 to review the order dtd. 30.7.2002 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2799/1998 by which the writ petitioner No. 2799/1998 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. In the original writ petition which was decided by this Court on 30.7.2002, following prayers were made by the petitioner :(1) it be declared that the proposed closure/closure of academic activities of Mohta Ayurveda College, Sadulpur (respondent No. 5) is illegal. (2) alternatively and without prejudice respondent-State of directed to either take over Mohta Ayurveda College, Sadulpur (respondent No. 5) or to appoint an administrator to run the College. (3) alternative, the respondent No. 6 Bhaskar Educational Society be directed to fulfill its undertaking of making finances available for the purpose of running the college. (4) the notice dtd. 21st July, 1...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Taj Oil Traders
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: [2003]262ITR500(Raj)
1. On a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, has referred the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that in a protective assessment returned income should be accepted and any addition proposed to be made, should be made only where the substantive assessment is framed ?' 2. The assessee has shown a deriving income from the trading of edible oils. The books of the assessee were seized under Section 131(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. From the record it was found that the firm existed only on paper as it did not carry on any business. The business was found to have been conducted by Shri Chula Ram, one of the partners of the firm. Therefore, the assessee-firm was taxed on protective basis and the income in the name of Taj Oil Trading was taxed in the hands of Chula Ram. 3. None appeared for the assessee. Heard learned counsel f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »