Rajasthan Court September 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. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)1; [2004]268ITR305(Raj)
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. In this appeal against the judgment of Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench Jodhpur dt. 27th June, 2001, following two questions were framed as substantial questions of law involved in the appeal vide order dt. 24th May, 2002 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,61,462 by holding that unpaid amount of bottling fee has, on furnishing of bank guarantee, to be treated as actual payment and accordingly, the deduction in respect of the same cannot be denied under Section 43B of the IT Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 61,412 made by the AO on account of disallowance of landscaping expenses not covered under Section 35(1)(iv) of the IT Act by wrongly relying on the decision in ITA No. 1546/Jp/95 dt. 30th March, 2001 'By order dt. 26th Aug., 2003, while hearing of...
Buta Singh Vs. Superintending Eng. Survey Circle, Ignp (Cad) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR1192]; (2004)IILLJ187Raj; RLW2004(1)Raj496; 2004(1)WLC718
Panwar, J.1. The instant writ petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India has been filed seeking relief to quash the order Annx. P/2 dated 8-4-2003 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.2. The facts and circumstance giving rise to this writ petition are that petitioner, a Junior Engineer, reported on duty on 10-3-1986 and the joining report was signed by the concerned authority. He remained present in the office from 10-3-1986 to 31-7-1986 but the salary for the said period had not been paid to him. He filed a claim petition under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, 'the Act') and the learned Payment of Wages Authority (for short, 'the Authority'), vide order dated 15-1-2002 (Annx. 1), allowed the claim petition and directed the respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 6490/- as salary to the petitioner. The respondent State went in appeal and the Appellate Authority (District Judge, Bikaner), vide impugned Order dated 8- 4-2003, allo...
R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Kumari Santosh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN644
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the Corporation, against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali, dated 15.7.1999, decreeing the claim for a sum of Rs. 1,73,600/-, and directing this amount, to carry interest @ 6% per annum, from 6.10.1997 till realisation. The claimant has filed a cross-objection, seeking enhancement of the award.2. The facts of the case are that on 26.5.1997, the claimant along with her other family members was going from Falna to Ranakpur, in a car No. RSJ-7935, when they proceeded about four kilometers ahead of Bali, before village Kotbalian, the Corporation's bus No. RJ 14-P-2231 came from the opposite direction, being driven negligently, banged against the car, as a result of which, right hand of the claimant was severely injured, rather the hand was separated from near elbow. With these allegations of facts, it was claimed, that the claimant belongs to ordinary family, who earn their livelihood by running Tiffin service, wherein t...
Mamta Sharma (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj2063; 2004(1)WLC314
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Looking to the short controversy involved in the present matter, the writ petition is disposed of at this stage.2. While doing her Post Graduate Course, the petitioner availed maternity leave for a period from 6.2.2001 to 5.6.2001. However, she was not allowed to appear in the examination on the ground that she has not completed three years of training prior to the examination. The period of maternity leave was not counted for the purpose of completion of three years.3. Petitioner has relied on notification issued by the University of Rajasthan on 24.9.2002, by which it has further been provided that the period of training shall also include the maternity leave availed by a female post graduate resident doing P.G. Degree/Diploma Course and the same period may be counted as on duty for the purpose of training computing her three years/two years training period once during the course.4. In reply to the writ petition it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents t...
Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Krishan Printers and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2148; 2004(1)WLC512
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Bank filed a suit for recovery of the advanced amount against the principal borrowers and against the guarantor, who is non- petitioner No. 5 in this revision petition. Since the suit was for recovery of the money from borrowers as well as for recovery of the money by sale of the mortgaged property, therefore, the trial court passed the preliminary decree on 28.3.1992 for Rs. 1,01,740.20. So far as determination of the liabilities of the principal borrowers and the guarantor, is concerned, stand concluded by the decree dated 28.3.1992. Since the principal borrowers failed to make payment of the decretal amount, therefore, application was submitted by the petitioner Bank for passing final decree so that the amount may be recovered by sale of the mortgaged property upon which the trial court passed the final decree on 23.2.1994 holding that since the principal borrowers have f...
Arjun Singh Vs. A.D.J. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj246; 2004(3)WLC131
ORDERGyan Sudha Misra, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant in a suit for specific performance which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 Hukam Singh in the year 1997. The defendant-petitioner was granted four months time to lead the evidence of rebuttal in the suit which he failed to avail; yet last opportunity was granted to him thereafter to lead evidence and finally when the matter was listed on 19-7-2003, the defendant-petitioner neither led any evidence nor he made a request to the Court to adjourn the matter and grant further time to lead evidence. Consequently, the trial Court closed the evidence of the defendant-petitioner and the matter was ordered to be listed for arguments on 31-7-2003.2. The petitioner thereafter has filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid order on the ground that a revision is not maintainable against the impugned order in view of the amendment introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure. It is however, contended that a writ petition under...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R.G. Ispat Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)262; [2005]272ITR383(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') made reference of the following question for our consideration.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the view taken by the CIT(A) that the assessee's building of massive reinforced concrete structure is an integral part of the plant and machinery and consequently in directing the ITO to allow investment allowance and depreciation thereon ?'3. The relevant assessment year is 1982-83. The assessee claimed before the AO that the building wherein the plant and machinery is housed should be treated as a plant and, depreciation and investment allowance should be allowed thereon. This claim made by the assessee was disallowed by the AO. The assessee had taken the matter in the appeal before the CIT(A), who set aside the order of the AO and remitted the matter to him to decide it on the basis...
Madan Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1010; 2004(1)WLC62
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. As many as a 5 accused were indicted before the learned Sessions Judge Tonk in Sessions Case No. 58/1997 for having committed murder of Hansa, learned trial Judge vide judgment dated April 27, 2000 convicted and sentenced the appellants Madan Lal and Danmal for the offence under Section 302 read with 34, IPC to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer six months imprisonment. Co-accused Bhanwar Lal, Ramdev and Babulal were however acquitted.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on May 28, 1997 around 7.00 p.m. when Hansa (now deceased) had gone to ease himself out side the house just after taking food, five accused including the appellants belaboured him and inflicted knife-blows on his person which resulted in his death. Ramdev (PW-4), Babu Lal (PW-3) and Kalu Ram (PW-7) were named as eye-witnesses of the occurrence by the informant Ram Prakash (PW-1) who submitted ...
Vimal Chand Gautam Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Raj)549
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. By agreement of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :(1) The petitioner will file preliminary objections within 7 days and the assessing authority shall expeditiously decide the same by passing a reasoned order.(2) The assessing authority shall pass the assessment order in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine all the persons whose statements are recorded and are relied upon by any IT authority and shall also give an opportunity to rebut any document/material on which the Department places reliance.(3) The assessing authority shall issue certified copies of all the documents on which he is placing reliance.(4) It will be open for the petitioner to raise all the pleas raised in the writ petition including legality of the notice issued under Section 148 in any subsequent proceedings....
Cit Vs. Hazarimal Milapchand Soorana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: [2004]135TAXMAN424(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. On the application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 196) the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) preferred following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that M/s. Hazarimal Milapchand Soorana and M/s. Mannalal Nirmal Kumar Soorana & Company could not in law be treated as one firm for purposes of assessment ?'3. Whether the firm Mannalal Nirmal Kumar Soorana is an extension of assessee firm. M/s. Hazarimal Milapchand Soorana or not that is basically a question of fact. The learned Tribunal has found finality that M/s. Munnalal Nirmal Kumar Soorana and company is an independent firm and not an extension of M/section Hazarimal Milapchand Soorana. This finding of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence on record, cannot be disturbed unless it is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »