Rajasthan Court May 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.
Ram Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3420
ORDERO.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the complainant Ram Chandra against an order dated 4-10-2002, whereby, an application under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. for impleading one Mangi Lal as an accused, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract), Nagaur.2. The facts of the matter, in brief, are that according to the prosecution story, PW-10 Ram Chandra Jat resident of Village 'Bodwa' on 16-6-2001 at 1.00 p.m. lodged a written FIR Ex. P/13 before the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur. According to the F.I.R., the said Ramchandra along with his uncle Mangla Ram (deceased) was going on a two wheeler from their village 'Bodwa' to 'Dhadhalia'. Khurd. When they proceeded some 10 Kms. ahead from Kuchera, a Motor Cycle came from behind and the principal accused Ram Vilas alias Ram Kailash fired from a country made pistol and Mangla Ram received a solitary injury on account of that. According to the report, Mangi Lal son of Sagram r/o Village K...
Shri Girraj Industries Vs. Union of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN604(Raj)
ORDERThe following questions are raised in this appeal stated to be questions of law, which does arise out of the impugned order of Tribunal :'Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in having restored an addition of Rs. 1,00,000 on account of undisclosed stocks, etc., on a purely ad hoc basis without assigning any rhyme, reason or basis for the same ?Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in having interfered with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25-7-2002 without pointing out any material error whatsoever Whether the order dated 29-1-2003 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal suffers from arbitrariness inasmuch as it has restored any addition of Rs. 1 lakh without showing at all as to how that figure has been worked out Whether the order dated 29-1-2003 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal suffers from perversity ?'2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.3. The basic issue in these questions is whether the addition of Rs. 1 lakh can be sust...
Gehna Vs. Union of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN592(Raj)
ORDERLooking to the short controversy involved in the present matter, the writ petition is disposed of without issuing notices to the respondents.2. For an escaped assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, notice under section 148 dated 17-6-2002 has been issued to the petitioner for the assessment year 1999-2000 which is under challenge in the present writ petition.3. The impugned notice has been challenged mainly on the ground that no reason whatsoever, has been given by the assessing authority in the impugned notice. It has further been submitted that in spite of representation been made and reminders issued, the assessing authority has not supplied any reason, which is mandatory in nature. The Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19, has observed that where notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file the return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for iss...
Surajmal and Party Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2003
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN1(Raj)
ORDERIn this appeal the following questions are raised which are stated to be the question of law:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of loss of Rs. 4,27,887 in IMFL and Beer account as made by the assessing officer, irrespective of the fact that books of account and trading results shown by the appellant were accepted and no defects were pointed out by the assessing officer in the books of account shown by the appellant ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of loss of Rs. 4,27,887 as made by the assessing officer on the basis of comparable case and on the basis of estimation presumption and assumption irrespective of the fact that trading results shown by the appellant were not disbelieved 3. Whether loss shown by the appellant can be computed on the basis of comparable case of other assessee, irrespective of the fact t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Balu Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)175
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the proper interpretation and in construction of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976, the Tribunal was correct in holding that provisions of Sections 9 and 10 would not apply to a case of disclosure made under Section 14 of the said Act.'2. The assessee is a partner in the firm of M/s Madira Kraya Vikraya Sangh, Kota. In appeal filed by the firm, the Asstt. CIT allowed a loss of Rs. 12,91,250. The assessee was partner in the M/s Madira Kraya Vikraya Sangh. As loss has been allowed in the firm, the assessee's share also comes in the loss.In the meantime, the assessee made a disclosure under Section 14(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme and paid taxes accordingly. The share of the loss which comes to the share of the assessee, that resulted in refund of the tax already paid. The assessee claimed that he is entit...
Kv Associates (P.) Ltd. Vs. Matharu Chemical Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: [2004]120CompCas14(Raj); [2004]49SCL537(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. This Company Petition, presented on 29th of November, 2002 is under Section 433 read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act, 1956'). Prayer has been made therein for winding up of M/s. Matharu Chemical Industries Ltd., Proprietor M/s. Matharu Steel Private Limited, Jhalawar Road Near Airport, Kota, the respondent company since it is unable to pay its debt to the petitioner.3. In Para No. 5 of the petition it is stated that the respondent company has purchased the soda ash from the petitioner from time to time and have been making the part payment. The respondent company after admitting its liability to pay the debts, had sent its duly signed balance sheet to the petitioner. This balance sheet is on record as Annexure-1, which is as under :K.V. Associates Pvt. Ltd., ChandigarhStatement of account for Matharu Chemicals Industries from 1 -4-2001 to 14-12-2001. DateDescriptionDebitCreditBalanc...
Ajanta Enterprises Vs. Anita Tex Print Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: [2004]49SCL566(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. This petition presented on 13-5-2003 is under Sections 433 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act, 1956'). Therein the prayer is made that M/s. Anita Tex Print Limited, SP35, RHCO Industrial Area, Kaladera-3033801, Chomu, District Jaipur, the respondent company be wound up. Further prayer has been made to put all the movable and immovable assets of the respondent company in the charge of the Official Liquidator attached to this Court immediately, even during the proceedings, and that the Official Liquidator be directed to make payment of the petitioner of the amount of dues along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum till the date of realization. Award of costs has also been prayed for.3. In the petition it is alleged that the chemicals costing Rs. 1,64,277 was purchased by the respondent-company from the petitioner. In para No. 6 of the petition the petitioner stated that he sold and ...
Sandhya Bhatnagar (Miss.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj974; 2003(4)WLC295
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. Both the aforementioned writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in both of them identical questions of law and facts are involved and parties are same.S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4367/932. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 31.1.1992 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to grant due increments to the petitioner and finalise her fixation in revised pay scales from 1st November, 1989 in grade Rs. 1200-2040.3. The case of the petitioner as put forward by her in this writ petition is as follows:-The petitioner was appointed as Music Teacher Grade III vide order dated 28.3.1985 (Annex. 2 to the writ petition No. 4817/2002) passed by the respondent No. 3 Dy. Director (Girls), Education Department, Jodhpur till end of the session, which was further extended till further orders vide order dated 1.7.1987 passe...
Cit Vs. Balu Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN71(Raj)
ORDEROn an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether on the proper interpretation and in construction of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976, the Tribunal was correct in holding that provisions of sections 9 and 10 would not apply to a case of disclosure made under section 14 of the said Act ?'2. The assessee is a partner in the firm of M/s. Madira Kraya Vikrava Sangh, Kota. In appeal filed by the firm, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax allowed a loss of Rs. 12,91,250. The assessee was partner in the M/s. Madira Kraya Vikraya Sangh. As loss has been allowed in the firm, the assessee's share also comes in the loss.3. In the meantime, the assessee made a disclosure under section 14(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme and paid taxes accordingly. The share of the loss which comes to the share of the assessee, that resulted in refund of the tax already pa...
Madad Lal Ansari Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Raj)76; [2005]272ITR560(Raj)
N.M. Mathur, J.1.In view of the short controversy involved, we have directed Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat, standing counsel for the IT Department to accept the notice.2. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act is directed against the order of the Tribunal, Jodhpur dt. 13th Feb., 2003 for the asst. yr. 1994-95.3. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we are of the view that following substantial question of law arises for adjudication:'Whether the Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the prayer of the appellant for raising additional ground on the premise that such additional ground was raised after the expiry of prescribed time-limit for filing appeal before the Tribunal?'4. We have perused the judgment of the Tribunal. It appears from the para 14 of the order that Tribunal had refused the prayer of the appellant to raise the additional ground only on the ground that it was not raised within the time allowed under Section 253 of the IT Act. It i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »