Rajasthan Court July 2004 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.
Raunaq Finance Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Raj)215; [2005]272ITR210(Raj); 2004(4)WLC206
1. The appeal has been admitted in terras of the following questions :'1. Whether the existence of 'reason to believe' which is sine quo non for validity of initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act, can be solely established by the testimony of a hostile witness examined at the back of the assessee which is contrary to the evidence on record ?2. Whether the finding that the appellant had no materials to lease is so contradictory to the accepted position that the appellant was actually assessed on rental income for 5 years derived from the leasing of the very material, that it stands vitiated by itself ?3. Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a person who persistently fails to substantiate his testimony and fails to get himself cross-examined or even adduce any independent evidence to rebut the statement of the party affected by such a statement, deserves to be rejected outright and cannot be used as evidence against the party affected by such an uncorrobo...
Praveen Kumar and anr. Vs. JaIn Vishva Bharati Institute and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2528; 2004(4)WLC219
N.P. Gupta, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the charge-sheet Annexure-8 dt. 24.3.2004, so also order of expulsion, passed against the two petitioners on 31.3.2004 being Annexure-9 & 10, and also seek a direction to allow both the petitioners to appear in the Final Examination of MSW Course commencing from 19.4.2004, or any other date as notified by the respondents, for the Academic Session 2003-2004. The directions are sought against the two respondents, being No. 1 Jain Vishva Bharati Institute (Deemed University) Ladnun, District Nagour through its Vice Chancellor, and No. 2 being the Registrar, Jain Vishva Bharati Institute (Deemed University).2. The factual allegations are, that the Institute was founded in the year 1970, with the inspiration of late Acharya Shri Tulsi, as a centre of education, literature, culture, social service, meditation and spirituality, with a primary objective of the institute, to provide instruction, training, research, experim...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. J.P. Singh and Sons
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC382(Raj); 2005WLC(Raj)UC345
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer against the judgment and order dated February 6, 2002 (annexure 3) passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeal No. 664/98 by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.2. It arises in the following circumstances:On August 28, 1997, the vehicle No. PB-03D-1623 belonging to the respondent, which was carrying goods, was intercepted and checked by the petitioner-Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer and during checking, it was found that the declaration form ST-18A was time-barred as it was issued on September 19, 1994 and its validity was for a period of two years, therefore, after September 18, 1996, it became time-barred. Since the goods in transit were not accompanied with valid declaration form ST-18A, therefore, a notice Under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994') for violation of the provisions o...
Magna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2097; 2004(4)WLC347
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Vide order dt. 2.3.2000, notice for final hearing was issued. Notice of the stay application was also issued. Thereafter vide order dt. 29.3.2000, after service of the respondent, the matter was ordered to be listed for final hearing on 10.4.2000. On 10.4.2000, again the matter was ordered to be listed for hearing on 18.4.2000, then arguments were heard, and vide judgment dt. 28.4.2000, the writ petition was allowed. Against that order, a D.B. Special Appeal, being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 442/2000, was filed, and vide judgment dt. 13.4.2001, the same was allowed, on the short ground, that in a absence of appearance of appellant (present respondent No. 4), at best, the writ petition ought to have been admitted, and fresh notice ought to have been issued. It was also noticed, that though Vakalatnama is said to have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, it could not be placed on record, for certain reasons, which were also noticed, and therefore, the order passe...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Kamal Kumar Mansinghka
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Raj)339; [2005]275ITR485(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 27A of the WT Act and the office has wrongly registered it as OTR Tax Ref.2. The office is directed to register it as an appeal and number it accordingly.3. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in WTA No. 74/Jp/1995 for asst. yr. 1983-84 and relates to the validity of the proceedings of reassessment in pursuance of the notice dt. 23rd March, 1994 in respect of asst. yr. 1983-84.4. The facts which are found by the Tribunal and are not in dispute shows that in the first instance, the assessment for 1983-84 under the WT Act, 1957, was completed on 16th Feb., 1984 which was founded on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Seth Pussalal Mansinghka Trust for asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1982-83 in which the assessee was allowed to exercise the option about inclusion of value of immovable property in question, which was under the said trust in the hands of the appellant from asst. yr. 1982-83 o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›