Rajasthan Court March 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sambhar Salt Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Raj)350
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no information was given by the audit party within the meaning of Section 147(b) of IT Act and that intimation of proceedings under that provision was wholly invalid ?' 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the reassessment order ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1972-73. The assessment was completed on 21st Feb., 1975. After completion of the assessment order, the audit party has pointed out that Rs. 69,338 have wrongly been allowed as the amount of Rs. 69,338 has not been incurred against the payment of leave, salary and pension to the employees. When this information was passed on to the ITO, he recorded the reasons for reopening of the assessment as under :'The local audit party has ra...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ram Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2550; 2003(2)WLC576
Singh, C.J.1. A criminal case was registered against the respondent under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (in short R.P. (U.P.) Act, 1966). He was tried in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Ajmer. The case terminated in acquittal of the respondent vide order of the trial Court dated 17.7.95. It is not disputed that no departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent in respect of the charges for which he was tried and acquitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railways). While acquitting the respondent, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate granted the benefit of doubt to him.2. After the respondent was acquitted of the charges, the appellants by an order dated 13.1.1997 promoted him to the post of Driller Gr.-I and allowed the benefit of notional fixation of pay in the promotional post w.e.f. 12.9.80, the date when his junior Shri Chandra Kishore was appointed to the post of Driller Gr.I.3. The respondent ch...
Cit Vs. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN668(Raj)
ORDEROn an application filed under section 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal 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 justified in allowing the assessee's claim for liability of Rs. 1,27,058 ?'2. The assessee derives income from same business as in the past. The relevant assessment year is 1983-84. During the year in hand, assessee claimed Rs. 1,27,058 being the demand of Rajasthan Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax pertaining to the accounting year ended on 30-9-1975 and 30-9-1976.3. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the Income Tax Officer on the ground that the demand did not relate to this year. The Income Tax Officer has further pointed out that the demand raised has already been quashed in the year 1983-84 by Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of the Sales Tax Department. The view taken by Income Tax Officer has been confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals).4. In appeal be...
Sh. Mohta Dharamshala Trust Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: 2003WLC(Raj)UC630; 2003(3)WLN611
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner trust through its trustee Shashi Kumar Mohta has filed this writ petition challenging the assessment and demand of tax under the Rajasthan Lands and Buildings Tax Act, 1984 (hereinafter called the Act of 1984) assessed vide order dated 25.9.2002 (Annex.10) dated 26.9.2002 (Annex.11) and consequential demand notice dated 19.10.2002 (Annex.12).2. This challenge has been made on several grounds including challenge to vires of proviso to Sub-section (f) of Section 6 and the validity of notifications dated 30.3.2000 (Annex.13) as amended vide notification dated 28.6.2000 (Annex.14) being ultra vires provisions of the Act which relate to fixing flat rate at which the market value is to be determined for determining the amount of tax payable under the Act of 1984. Apart from the aforesaid grounds, it has also been urged that the notification dated 31.3.1998 (Annex.16) by which uninhibited exemption from payment of tax in respect of land and buildings subject ...
Santosh Kumar Sharma Vs. Raj. State Agriculture Mrktg. Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj908; 2003(2)WLC709
Parihar, J.1. The petitioner was initially appointed oh the post of LDC purely on temporary basis for six months vide order dated 11.9.1981. The services of the petitioner were further extended from time to time with the condition of passing the type test. The petitioner was ultimately confirmed on the post of LDC after having passed the type test vide order dated 21.4.1988 w.e.f. 1.4,1988. A provisional seniority list of LDCs was published by the respondent Board on 21.4.1988 and after considering the representations, made by the concerned employees, a final seniority list was published on 29.11.1988. Name of the petitioner finds place at No. 94 whereas names of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been included at No. 81 and 85 respectively.2. There is no dispute that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were also given temporary appointment alongwith the petitioner. However, since they had passed the type test earlier, they had been confirmed w.e.f. 5.3.1986. Subsequently, as per recommendations of the ...
Amita Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Raj230; RLW2003(2)Raj1075; 2003(2)WLC766; 2003(2)WLN477
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally on their requests.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.2.2002 by which demand of Rs. 3,66,6307- has been raised against the petitioner against the dead rent for mining lease granted to the petitioner.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier certain demands were raised against the petitioner, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing SBCW No. 2127/2000 wherein interim order was passed by the Hon'ble Court on 7th July, 2000 and the execution and implementation of the orders dt.22.12.99 (Annex.4), 28.2.2002 (Annex.5) and 18.4.2000 (Annex.6) were stayed by the court. The writ petition was decided by order dated 7.2.2001. It appears from the order dated 7.2.2001 that both the parties agreed before the court that controversy involved in the writ petition No. 2127/2000 is squarely covered by the judgment and order passed by this court in the writ petition of Smt. Rajbai Dangi v. State of Raj. a...
Ram Nath Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1175; 2003(2)WLC661
Parihar, J. 1. While challenging the order dated 16.3.1990, the petitioner has claimed semi-permanency on the post of Store Mushi/LDC from the date of his initial appointment, mainly on the ground that he has been performing the duties of LDC/Store Mushi right from the beginning.2. As has come on record, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of work charge helper on 15.1.1979. Subsequently, he was declared semi-permanent on the post of Helper w.e.f. 1.4.1982 vide order dated 29.12.1983. Thereafter, vide order dated 20th April, 1989 the petitioner was ordered to be absorbed on permanent basis w.e.f. 1.4.1985. It was only in pursuance to the order dated 20.4.1989 that the impugned letter dated 16.3.1990 was issued asking the petitioner to submit his medical certificate for his absorption on permanent basis on the post of helper. There is no dispute that the petitioner is getting salary for the post of helper only since 1979.3. Mr. Shah, while relying upon the Work Charge Ser...
Nemi Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2336; 2003(2)WLC721
MISRA, J.1. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Section 302 IPC alongwith some other sections which is pending for trial. It is his grievance that respondent No. 3 Mani Ram Sharma had appeared as an advocate on behalf of the informant/complainant-party against him and hence he should not have been appointed as a Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial. It has further been stated that at some point of time his appointment as a Public Prosecutor had been cancelled and thereafter he has been re-appointed as a Public Prosecutor in the same case. According to the accused-petitioner this action of the State is illegal and the respondent No. 3 should not be allowed to conduct the trial on behalf of the State.(2). Mr. Jain has vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 the Public Prosecutor would not be acting fairly in the trial of the case pending against the petitioner and he has also relied upon certain authorities in order to emphasises that a P...
Chunni Lal Baheti Vs. A.D.J. No. 1 and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(27)PTC514(Raj); 2004(5)WLC753
N.N. Mathur, J.1. We have heard Mr. J.P. Joshi learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Soni learned counsel for the respondent cavetor.2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the instant special appeal is not worth admission. That 2nd respondent Bharat Lal filed a suit under the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur seeking injunction against the appellant to restrain him from using the registered trade mark BIC for which he was entitled to use exclusively. The Trial Court granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff, but the same was vacated by the learned single Judge of this Court. The matter was carried to the Apex Court. The Apex Court while dismissing the special leave to appeal by order dated 9.5.2001 directed to Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the suit within six months. It is relevant to mention here that a rectificatio...
Technique Diabrasives India Ltd. Vs. Uoi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN69(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition in limine against the show-cause notice relegating the appellant to the statutory remedy.2. A notice was issued to the appellant assessee-company for the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1999-2000 to reassess the escaped income on account of wrong claim of deduction under section 80HH of the Income Tax Act. The appellant has challenged the assessment only with respect to the assessment year 1995-96. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition on the ground that the appellant has already filed a reply to the show-cause notice and may satisfy the competent authority that he is entitled for the benefit of section 80HH and 80-I of the Act.3. Mr. Bhandawat learned counsel appearing for the department submits that the appellant had submitted reply to the show-cause notice against all the four assessment years for which the notices have been issued. The appellant has also preferred an appeal against...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »