Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : II(2003)ACC327; 2004ACJ1028; 2003WLC(Raj)UC671
Harbans Lal, J.1. These two civil misc. appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to in short 'the Act') are directed against the common award dated 11.10.1995 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to in short 'the Tribunal'). Therefore, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 13.5.1993 deceased Rakesh Kumar and injured Madan Singh were coming on a bicycle from Harmada to Jaipur City. A bus No. RJ 14-P 0740 which was owned by Krishna Motor Service and was being driven by Balbir Singh came from behind and dashed against their bicycle by driving it rashly and negligently, as a result of which they sustained injuries. Rakesh succumbed to the injuries and Madan Singh sustained serious multiple injuries. A criminal case was got registered and two claim petitions were filed. One claim petition being M.A.C. No. 284 of 1993 was filed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2003)183CTR(Raj)526; [2004]265ITR98(Raj)
1. In this appeal, following questions are proposed stating that these questions involved substantial questions of law :'Whether the notice issued under Section 158BC of the IT Act of 1961 by the AO in the present case to file the return 'within 15 days' does not violates the provision of Section 158BC which requires the notice of 'not being less than 15 days' implying clear 15 days and whether the assessment framed on the basis of such illegal notice is not bad in law despite of filing of return by the assessee as estoppel has no place in statute and illegality cannot be waived even by the acquiescence of the assessee ?' 'Whether learned Tribunal was justified in considering the amount of Rs. 11,074 and Rs. 30,109 as undisclosed income under Section 158BB of the IT Act of 1961 r/w Section 158B(b) of the same Act particularly after the retrospective amendment in Section 158BB(1)(c) in respect of the sources which are not undisclosed being regular business profit and interest income ?''...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2003)184CTR(Raj)381; [2004]265ITR250(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. In these two appeals, following questions are proposed to be considered, being the substantial questions of law :Asst. yr. 1989-90 (Appeal No. 45/2003)'Whether the amount of Rs. 2,40,74,820 utilized by the assessee-company for acquisition of shares of M/s Sharpedge Ltd. through its subsidiaries in order to acquire controlling interest and improve the business conditions is not 'for the purpose of business' within the meaning of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of 1961, and whether in such circumstances the interest expenditure in relation to such amount can be disallowed under the Act ?''Whether the disallowance of Rs. 75,83,860 under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of 1961 is justified on the ground that no direct nexus is proved between the interest-free advances received from M/s Gillette U.K. Ltd. and interest-free advances given to subsidiary companies when the nexus is not only evident from the bank statements but is also accepted by the D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2003)183CTR(Raj)355; [2004]267ITR377(Raj)
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. In all these three matters having the identical facts and grievance the common order in passed.3. The facts in all the cases reveal that the respondent No. 4 issued a notice to the petitioner, which was received by the petitioner on 7th Feb., 2003. This notice is purported to be under Section 142 of the IT Act, 1961, wherein the petitioner was asked to remain present on 14th Feb., 2003, before the respondent No. 4. According to petitioner he found from the letter dt. 7th Feb., 2003, that a notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was alleged to have been issued to the petitioner on 29th May, 2001. In response to above notice fixing the date 14th Feb., 2003 (Annexure P/1A) the petitioner gave two letters to the respondent No. 4 on 10th Feb., 2003, and requested inspection of complete file pertaining to the proceedings against the assessee before 14th Feb., 2003. In second letter, request for grant of certified copi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(4)Raj2455; 2003(4)WLC126
Parihar, J.1. The petitioner passed his secondary school examination in the year 1985 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer as a regular student. Subsequently, he also acquired the qualification of Graduation i.e. Bachelor of Arts in the year 1989 and also passed the B.P. Ed. examination from Amrawati University. It was only in the year 1996 that the petitioner again appeared in the secondary school examination for improving his percentage of marks and passed the said examination with improved marks.2. In pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents on 6.10.1996 for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) Gr. III, the petitioner also submitted his application, however, the application was rejected oh the ground that he had submitted the marksheet of improved marks in the secondary school examination and the mark sheet of the earlier secondary school examination of the year 1985 had not been annexed with the application form.3. While c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2003Raj227; RLW2003(4)Raj2192; 2003(3)WLC44
Mathur, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 11-4-2002 whereby he dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Order 41, Rule 19, C.P.C.2. The relevant facts are that the respondent-plaintiffs suit was decreed against the appellant Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. for possession of an industrial plot measuring 2000 Sq. ft. at the cost of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. with development charges. The appellant preferred a regular first appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 3-2-1995 passed by Additional. District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before this Court. The appeal was admitted and the operation of the decree was stayed. After notice the appeal was to be heard in due course. For the preparation of the Paper Book the counsel for the appellant was required to deposit initial charges and to submit list of documents. As there was default, the case was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj1011; 2004(1)WLC668
N.N. Mathur, J.1. In the instant petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India the core question arises for consideration is what ought to be the criteria for the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement where discharge or dismissal of a workman is held to be not legal or justified.2. The factual score which has bearing on the controversy involved are that there is a hostel in village Raniwada for the students belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community receiving grant in aid from the Social Welfare Department of the Government of Rajasthan. Each students contributes Rs. 80/- per month for running the mess. The petitioner workman Babu Lal was engaged as a part time Chowkidar in December, 1992 on a monthly salary of Rs. 350/- per month. He was discharged from the service on 23.3.95, by oral order of the Superintendent of the Hotel. On raising an industrial dispute the State of Rajasthan made a reference to the Labour Court as to whether the terminati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(4)Raj2151; 2003(3)WLC246
Tatia, J.1. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, after passing the degree of Bachelor of Arts from the Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur in the year 2000, took admission in the three years LL.B. Course. There were nine papers for the LL.B. Ist Year Examination. The petitioner appeared in the final examination of the LL.B. Ist Year. The petitioner though secured the minimum pass marks or more than the minimum pass marks in all the nine papers but the petitioner failed to obtained the prescribed aggregate percentage which is 48%, to declare the candidate pass in the final examination of the LL.B. Ist Year, There is a provision for giving opportunity to the candidates to appear in supplementary examination for which certain instructions have been issued. The instruction is as under :-'Candidates who failed at the immediately preceding First or Second Examination in two papers only and obtained 48% marks in the aggregate to the seven papers in which they have passed, or in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2003)181CTR(Raj)92; 2004(165)ELT22(Raj); [2003]263ITR317(Raj); RLW2004(1)Raj702; [2004]135STC278(Raj); 2003(3)WLC736
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act directed against the order of Tribunal, Jodhpur, dt. 5th June, 2002, was admitted for adjudication of the following substantial question of law :''Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that additional ground can be raised in the memo of appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation ?'2. The relevant facts for adjudication of the above substantial question of law are that the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the judgment of the CIT(A) dt. 17th Nov., 2000. The appeal was presented within the limitation. During the pendency of appeal, the assessee filed an application seeking permission to amend the existing grounds of appeal to raise additional grounds. The prayer is extracted as follows :'The appellant seeks your honour's kind permission to frame one ground as against 7 grounds of appeal raised in the memo of appeal. The amended ground reads as under as Sl. No. 1 : 1. 'That on the facts an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2003)181CTR(Raj)467; [2003]263ITR206(Raj)
1. Since all the three appeals involve common question of law, the same are being decided by the common judgment.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'), dt. 27th Nov., 2000. The appeals were admitted in terms of the following questions :'1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the view of the learned CIT(A) and AO that additions could be made on estimation or presumption and by rejecting the documentary evidence produced by the assessee in contradiction of the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmal : [1973]87ITR349(SC) .2. Whether the Tribunal was justified it bifurcating the lease rent into capital and revenue expenditure merely on a presumptuous basis ?3. Whether the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the intention of the parties was to transfer in abrogation of the specific terms of lease agreement which all through the document provides...
Tag this Judgment!