Rajasthan Court April 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. Prem Nath Motors (Rajasthan) (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)311
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Considering the submissions, the Tribunal is directed to refer the following questions along with the statement of case for the opinion of this Court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that before making a reference to the Valuation Officer for his opinion under Section 133(6) of the IT Act, it was necessary that there is material or evidence to indicate that certain expenses incurred on the construction have not been recorded in the books of the assessee ?''Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Valuation Officer's report was not sufficient material/evidence for the AO to determine the cost of construction of the property and whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on the basis of the Valuation Officer's report ?'3. The reference be made within 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.4. The refere...
Mittal Steels and Castings Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN828(Raj)
ORDERHeard learned counsel for the appellant.2. In this appeal, following questions are raised stating that these questions involve substantial issue of law :'1. Whether the addition on account of profit on alleged suppressed sales amounting to Rs. 6,76,175 is sustainable merely on the basis of alleged disparity in power consumption and without any iota of evidence relating to alleged production or sale 2. Whether, non-production of Central Excise Records before learned Tribunal when the same was not demanded by the learned Tribunal can be the basis for drawing adverse inference against the assessee particularly when in assessee's own case the learned Tribunal has been consistently holding that the assessee is maintaining Central Excise Records, complete books of account, complete details of production and electricity consumption 3. Whether in view of the finding of fact recorded by learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the facts of earlier orders and the present case are same and that i...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through the Chairman R.S.R. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)WLN639
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 14.5.2001 on 13.9.2001. The Registry has reported the appeal to be barred by 30 days. The appeal was not accompanied by the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the same was filed subsequently on 22.2.2002. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.4.2002 notice of the application was ordered to be issued. However, after service, the matter came up for consideration on 6.3.2003, on which time, it was found that the application is completely bereft of particulars of facts. However, learned Counsel for the appellant sought indulgence by seeking adjournment for three weeks. Thereafter, an additional application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on 6.3.2003.3. A perusal of the subsequent application shows that though the appellant has purported to have explained the delay between obtaining certified copy and filation of appeal to be on account ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›