Rajasthan Court February 2003 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Marudhar Hotel (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Raj)372; [2004]269ITR310(Raj); RLW2003(4)Raj2458
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The following substantial question of law arising out of the order of Tribunal, Jaipur Bench has been referred to this Court in GTA No. 6/Jp/1986 under Section 26(3) of the GT Act in pursuance of the order made by this Court on 4th March, 1997, in DB GT Ref. No. 6/1994 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there could be no element of deemed gift whereby sustaining the order of the CGT(A) and dismissing the Departmental appeal?'3. The facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee-company-respondent entered into a partnership with Ex-ruler of Marwar H.H. Gaj Singh on 12th Nov., 1974, for the purposes of running a hotel titled as Umaid Bhawan Palace. By means of the agreement, the assessee company was to bring in its capital asset, namely, the building known as the 'Umaid Bhawan Palace' as its contribution to the partnership capital, with a conditi...
Tag this Judgment!J.P. Mathur Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN390(Raj)
ORDERThe petitioner is aggrieved against the demand created by respondent No. 2 of the Rs. 25,313 as demand of income-tax by disallowing the exemption provided under section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the controversy has been settled down by Division Bench in LIC of India v. Union of India and connected DBC Special Appeal No. 406/2001 decided on 22-1-2003. According to both the counsel, in view of decision of this court, this demand of Rs. 25,313 against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.2. In view of above submission of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed. The demand raised against the petitioner of Rs. 25,313 under section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act is quashed. Consequently, the notice of demand is also quashed.3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of said demand, respondents have issued notice dated 27-1-2003 and attached the bank account of the...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Marudhar Hotel (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN403(Raj)
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The following substantial question of law arising out of the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench has been referred to this court in GTA No. 6/(JP)/1986 under section 26(3) of the Gift Tax Act in pursuance of the order made by this court on 4-3-1997 in D.B. Gift Tax Reference No. 6/94 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there could be no element of deemed gift whereby sustaining the order of the Commissioner of Gift Tax (Appeals) and dismissing the departmental appeal ?'3. The facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee-company-respondent entered into a partnership with Ex-ruler of Marwar H. H. Gaj Singh on 12-11-1974 for the purposes of running a hotel titled as Umaid Bhawan Palace. By means of the agreement, the assessee-company was to bring in its capital asset, namely, the building known as the 'Umai...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. HussaIn and Etc. Vs. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Raj266; RLW2004(2)Raj749; 2003(3)WLC704
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These two writ petitions are by unsuccessful occupants of wakf properties, which are public premises within the meaning of Section 2(b)(viii) of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (Act No. 2 of 1965) (for short 'the Act).2. The case of the petitioners is that vide rent deed dated 13-5-1988, they have been inducted as tenants in the properties situated at Jodhpur belonging to Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the respondent-Wakf Board') on the conditions that they will pay rent @ Rs. 200/- per month for the first 5 years and thereafter, 15% rent will be increased after every five years till the rent is brought to Rs. 304.17P. per month. It was agreed that the rent will be paid only by obtaining a receipt. The petitioners paid the rent regularly up to 30-6-1990. Thereafter, since the receipt was not given, the rent could not be paid.3. As a result of non-payment of rent, the petitioner Mo...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Kumar Bhadu Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2266; 2003(3)WLC311
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. All these petitions heard together as they involved common question of law and facts. The petitioners of these writ petitions are in service of the Police Department of the Government of Rajasthan appointed under the provisions of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules of 1989'). The dispute is whether they are holding the post of Constable (Civil Police) as provided in the Section 1 of Sub-rule (1) of the Rule 4 of the Rules of 1989 or whether they were holding the post of Constable (Driver). Since, the facts of all the cases are same, therefore, reference of the documents placed in Jai Kumar Bhadu v. State and Ors. (1), will be sufficient for the purpose of deciding these writ petitions.3. According to the petitioners, advertisement was issued for recruitment for the post of Constable and in pursuance of the advertisement, the petitioners submitted application. Copy of the advertisement is placed on ...
Tag this Judgment!Nishan Transformers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ali Mohd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR897]; (2003)IIILLJ333Raj
Prakash Tatia, J.1. An ex parte order was passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act against the petitioner on February 27, 1988 against which the petitioner submitted an application for setting aside the ex parte order. This application was dismissed by the Authority under the Payment of Wags Act on June 13, 1988. This order dated June 13, 1988, copy of which is placed on record as Annexure 2, is under challenge before this Court.2. Despite service no body appeared on behalf of the respondents.3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in identical set of facts between these very parties in a matter of order dated June 13, 1988 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Udaipur refusing to set aside the ex parte order dated February 27, 1988, this Court allowed the S.B.C.W.P. No. 72/1989 by order dated November 4, 1989. In view of the identity of the parties and the facts, this petition is also allowed. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Khaitan Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1145; 2003(2)WLC408
Misra, J. 1. The petitioner M/s. Khaitan Electricals Ltd. is a manufacturer of Water-Pump-sets used in water coolers, which has filed this revision petition challenging the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board dated 16.2.99 by which it has upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner of appeals as also the assessing authority who had imposed 2% further sales tax on water pump sets used in water coolers as it was held that 10% of sales tax which was paid by the petitioner was not correct as it should be paid at the rate of 12%. The controversy therefore which been raised in this revision petition is whether 12% sales tax is leviable on water pumps used in water coolers as per item 87 of the notification issued under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1954 or it should be 10% as per item No. 105 which envisages 10% sales tax as general rate on all goods that are not covered by any other item in that notification which are given out from serial No. 1 to 104.2. Learned counsel for the Pa ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gulab Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1217; 2003(2)WLC19
Parihar, J.1. The petitioner been wife of a freedom fighter is claiming appointment for her son under the provisions of the Rajasthan Freedom Fighters Aid Rules of 1959 in the present writ petition. The husband of the petitioner been a freedom fighter been not been disputed so far. However, the employment to the dependents can be given only under the relevant provisions of the Rules referred by the petitioner.2. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1959 is in regard to sufferings for which the aid can be granted. The same is quoted hereasunder :-'3. Sufferings for which aid can be granted-The sufferings for which aid may be granted under these rules to a political sufferer or in case of his death to his dependents, shall be all or any of the following, namely.- (a) death caused- (i) in pursuance of a capital sentence for an offence committed in pursuance or in furtherance of a political movement or otherwise related to such political movement, or(ii) while in imprisonment as a convict Or an under tr...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhudas Swami and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Raj190; RLW2003(2)Raj1181; 2003(2)WLC3
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Meaningful question that arises for our consideration in the instant matters is whether provisions contained in Section 79 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act 1959 are open to attack on the ground of excessive delegation.2. The prayer of the petitioners in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 772/2000, is as under :(i) to declare the provisions of Section 79 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (in short 1959 Act) to be ultra vires of the Constitution.(ii) to declare the appointment of the Managing Committee consisting of respondents 2, 3, and 4 to be illegal and null and void and action of the managing committee be struck down.(iii) to restrain the respondents 2, 3 and 4 from interfering in the management affairs of Shri Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha and its elected managing committee consisting of respondents 6 to 16.3. Three other writ petitions related to management of Shri Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha bearing Nos. 5559/99, 936/ 2001 & 6361/2002 pending before the single Bench...
Tag this Judgment!Banney Singh Rathore and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1648; 2003(3)WLC622
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 21.11.1988 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned orders Annex. 9 and Annex. 10 dated 10.10.1988 qua the respondents No. 3 to 7 by which the respondent No. 2 the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur re-determined the seniority amongst the petitioners and the respondents No. 3 to 7 and placed the respondents No. 3 to 7 above the petitioners, be quashed and set aside.2. The case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows :-The petitioners were duly recruited and selected for the posts of Excise Inspectors Gr. II vide order Annex. 1 dated 24.10.1973 against the substantive posts.The case of the petitioners is that the respondents No. 3 to 7 were appointed on the posts of Excise Inspectors Gr. II in the year 1970 vide orders dated 22.9.1970 (Annex. R/6) and 2.11.1970 without com...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »