Rajasthan Court July 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.
Diamond World Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Raj)555; [2004]267ITR466(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts, in totality of the circumstances and in view of detailed explanations/clarifications, the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that remittances received by the assessee in convertible foreign exchange from abroad as advertisement charges were not on account of sale proceeds of any goods which are exported out of India and hence would not be export turnover under Expln. (B) to Section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. The other questions proposed in the application were rejected. 3. Thereafter the petitioner has also moved an application under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, before us and raised the following questions : 1. 'Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that the action by the CIT under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961, is with jurisdiction ?' 2. 'Whether on the facts, in totality of the circu...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Roop NaraIn Sardar Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)713; [2004]267ITR601(Raj)
1. None appeared for the assessee today. Nor anybody appeared for the assessee on 22nd April, 2003 and 29th April, 2003, when the matter was listed for hearing. Therefore, we proceed to decide the matter ex parte.2. On an application under Section 256 of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:'Was the Tribunal, under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, right in recalling its earlier order dt. 29th Oct., 1993, passed under Section 254(1) in exercise of its powers under Section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'3. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business of silver and gold ornaments. There was a search conducted by the Department under Section 132 of the IT Act on 4th and 5th May, 1984. In the search, the Department worked out an excess stock of silver at 31.706 kgs. The Revenue also found excess cash to the tune of Rs. 92,535 than what was recorded in the books of account. During the assessment under Sec...
Raju Ram and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2237; 2003(4)WLC767
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1.The abovenamed accused appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 22-11-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 68/2001 by which while acquitting the accused appellants for the offence under Section 201, IPC, he convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 498A, IPC and 304-B, IPC and sentenced them in the following manner :--Name of accusedConvicted under sectionSentence awarded to eachaccused appellantI.Raju Ram498 A I PCThree years RI and to pay fineof Rs. 500 in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 monthsSI2.Chena Ram) 3.Smt. Nanl Devl)4.Jagdish) 304B IPCSeven years RI and to pay fineof Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, 6 monthsSI.The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :--On 19-6-2000 at about 7.30 p.m., PW5 Bhiyaram lodged a written rep...
Cit Vs. Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN139(Raj)
ORDEROn an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of assessee of Rs. 54,607 in respect of depreciation, power charges, engine-hire, despite the fact that business remained closed during the relevant accounting year ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of claim of expenditure of Rs. 1,51,190 incurred on medical treatment of Shri RK Golecha, M.D. in USA, despite the fact that the expenditure was in the nature 'Personal expenditure' of Shri Golecha ?'.2. The assessee-company is engaged in the business of mining of gypsum. The relevant assessment year is 1984-85. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer, noticed that assessee has claimed depreciation, power charges and engine-hire ...
Cit Vs. Roop NaraIn Sardar Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN350(Raj)
ORDERNone appeared for the assessee today. Nor anybody appeared for the assessee on 22-4-2003 and 29-4-2003, when the matter was listed for hearing. Therefore, we proceed to decide the matter ex parte.2. On 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 :'Was the Tribunal, under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, right in recalling its earlier order dated 29-10-1993 passed under section 254(1) in exercise of its powers under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'3. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business of silver and gold ornaments. There was a search conducted by the department under section 132 of the Income Tax Act on 4th and 5th May, 1984. In the search, the department worked out an excess stock of silver at 31.706 kgs. The revenue also found excess cash to the tune of Rs. 92,535 than what was recorded in the books of account. During the assessme...
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Lrs of Late Smt. Amoll Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj332; 2003(4)WLC101
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Amoli Bai in her lifetime filed a suit for eviction against defendant Kanhaiya Lal appellant for the shop in dispute. The plaintiff Amoli Bai pleaded that shop in dispute is required for running a Medical Shop by Amoli Bai herself and, therefore, there is personal bonafide need of the suit premises. It is also submitted that the defendant-tenant wrongfully trespassed and took forcible possession over the staircase, side room and a ceiling, which are not the part of the lease property. The defendant-tenant started cooking sweets over the roof, resulting into causing nuisance, the plaintiff Amoli Bai also claimed damages for unauthorized use of the property.3. The suit was contested by the defendant-tenant-appellant denying the plaint allegations. The defendant also took a plea that initially shop was left out by Sh. Dayal Das husband of Amoli Bai. Dayal Das expired leaving behind other he...
Sher Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj731; 2003(4)WLC637
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment and order dated 1.9.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. one thousand, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 1.1.1995 at 8.15 AM, PW 10 Ramesh Chand Jat lodged a written report, Ex.P.14 at Police Station, M.I.A., Alwar, alleging therein that on 30.12.1994 at about 7.30 PM appellant Sher Singh and one more person switched off the engine installed at the tube-well of Girraj. It was alleged that when Girraj left the field and was on way to his house, appellant Sher Singh and one more person made Girraj to stop in the field of Pooran and made an assault on him with Farshi and Sword. Girraj fled away and reached his house. Thereafter in the morning of 31.12.1994, five persons...
Cit Vs. Popular Art Palace (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN658(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J. The learned counsel for the parties submit that the similar question which has been raised in this appeal has already been decided by this court in the appeal/cross objections of this very assessee and the reference has been made to the following cases:1. D.B. Cross-Objection No. 11/2003 in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 122/2002, decided on 8-4-2003.2. D.B. Cross Objection No. 20/2003 in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 171/2002, decided on 8-4-2003.2. We have gone through the orders of this court passed in those cases. The court has taken the view that 'Fork Lift' is not a plant and machinery for the purpose of section 80-I(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that the Tribunal has committed an error in treating it plant and machinery for the purpose of section 80-I(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We are in agreement with the view taken by this court in the cases aforesaid.3. As the Fork Lift is not a plant and machinery under section 80-I(2) of the Income Tax A...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Soni
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj867; 2003(4)WLC486
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed by the appellants against the judgment dated 9th December, 2002 of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3955/1999. Under that judgment the learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner respondent in the matter of the disciplinary proceedings.2. The petitioner respondent in the writ petition prayed for following prayers,'It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to allow this writ petition and may further be pleaded:-(i) to quash the impugned orders dated 13.01.1999 and - 05. 1999 (Annexures & respectively) with all consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner;(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and to allow and pay him all consequential service benefits to the petitioner forthwith;(iii) to issue any other writ/order direc...
Lalit Kumar and ors. Vs. Bhagwan Swaroop Srivastava
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1575; 2004(1)WLC173
Garg, J.1. Both the aforementioned revision petitions are being decided by this common judgment as in both of them, common questions of law and facts are involved and they have been preferred against the judgment dated 14.8.1996 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur.2. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- tenant-defendant Lalit Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') against the judgment dated 14.8.1996 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in civil misc. appeal No. 131/1996 by which he dismissed the appeal of the defendant and affirmed the order dated 15.5.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 1, Jodhpur in civil suit No. 356/1995 by which he determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950') at the rate of Rs. 130A per month for the period from 1.10.1980 to 30.4.1996.3. It arises in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »