Rajasthan Court August 2005 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.
Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Astt. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: [2006]155TAXMAN289(Raj)
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dated 28-11-2001, relating to the assessment year 1997-98. Against the very same judgment of the Tribunal, the revenue had also preferred an Income-tax Appeal No. 09/2003 which has been decided on 1-5-2003 CIT v. Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. , holding that no substantial question of law arose in the case by adverting to the contentions raised before the Tribunal and the facts of the case.2. In the present case, the assessing officer reached his conclusion that in the previous year relating to the assessment year, there has been increase in the share capital of the assessee-company on account of issue of shares. The shares have been issued to limited companies as well as individuals on the basis of receipt of share applications through banking channels.3. The Tribunal has noticed the break-up of share application money, which has been added by the assessing officer in...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Devendra Kumar Mittal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR490]
Y.R. Meena, A.C.J. and Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. The above referred writ petition has been filed against the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 1.6.2001 whereby the original application filed by the respondent No. 1 has been allowed partly with a direction to the respondents to hold a joint meeting of all the respondents and decide the post on which the applicant is entitled to be appointed on the basis of the report of the second medical board, thereafter, issue an appointment order to the applicant specifying the post within three months.Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the respondent No. 1 filed an Original Application No. 175/1994 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur challenging the order dated 24.11.1993 and Anr. order dated 24.12.1993 of the cancellation of the candidature of the applicant for appointment to the post of Deputy Superintending Surveyor Group-'A'. The applicant has also prayed for a direction to the respondents for giv...
Shabba Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2716; 2005(4)WLC523
K.C. Sharma, J.1. Through the petition, the petitioners seek to quash the order dated 5.4.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 5, North, Kota, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act hereinafter to be referred to as the 'NDPS ACT'.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that 37 Kgs. Of Poppy Straw was alleged to be recovered from their possession and a case for offence under Section 8/15B of the NDPS Act was registered against them. Referring the provisions of Section 36A of the NDPS Act, learned Counsel argued that since the quantity of poppy straw recovered from the possession of the petitioner was lesser than the commercial quantity but greater small quantity and the punishment provided for offence under Section 8/15B is more than three years, the Judicial Magistrate was not empowered to take cognizance of the offence. He submitted that the offences under th...
Managing Committee S.S. JaIn Subodh Siksha Samiti and anr. Vs. Rajendr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2994; 2005(4)WLC262
ORDERShri Rajendra Kumar Rao was engaged as Music Teacher though he was not in possession of the required qualifications for the said engagement coupled with the fact that Subodh Public School is an unaided institution being managed by Minorities in view of the recent notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan on 19.9.2,003 and thus the provisions of Section 18 of the Non Government Educational Institutions Act of 1989 no more remain applicable to the Institution in view of the DB Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court seat at Jodhpur as well as the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the services of Shri Rajendra Kumar Rao, Music Teacher are hereby terminated with immediate effect as his continuance in the school is not found to be in the interest of the Institution and a decision has already been taken by the Management Committee to pass this order. Shri Rao is given a cheque for a sum of Rs. 22,5787- (Rupees Twenty Two thousand Five hund...
Noorjahan Begum (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Ranjeet Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC573; 2007ACJ980; RLW2006(1)Raj784; 2006(2)WLC62
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This writ petition has filed challenging the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behror, Alwar by which the claim petition, filed by the claimants who are petitioners herein, has been rejected on account of non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioner before the Tribunal, when the matter was called out for conducting the proceeding on 24.11.1994.2. It appears that a claim petition was filed on 4.1.1990 by the claimants for determination of compensation on account of death of the husband of the petitioner No. 1-Smt. Noorjahan, who lost her husband as a result of an accident which was caused by the vehicle owned and possessed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 which however, shall be subject to scrutiny before the Tribunal. It is informed that the vehicle was also insured with respondent No. 3- New India Insurance Company.3. Be that as it may, the dispute at the moment is confined to the question as to whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Raj)415
1. The following questions are proposed for admission of the appeal:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law and has not acted perversely in deleting the additions made by the AO on account of disallowance of claim of lease rentals on the transactions of sale-cum-lease back agreement?Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has not acted perversely in allowing the appeal of the assessee and deleting the additions made on disallowance of lease rentals with regard to plant and machinery belonging to assessee and which were never transferred by the sale and were taken back on lease by the assessee and whether such colourable device of tax evasion is permissible under law?2. Whether the transaction of sale-cum-lease back is genuine or not and whether the lease rent should be allowed or not, the Tribunal has considered the factual aspects and legal provisions in this regard in paras 10 to 17 of its order. For ready referen...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: [2006]287ITR354(Raj)
1. The following question is proposed for admission of the appeal:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the interest of Rs. 1,60,105 levied under Section 201(1A) of the Act2. The facts are not in dispute that as and when the amount is paid, the tax has been deducted and that has been paid to the Department. The Tribunal has considered this aspect in paras. 6 and 7 of its order. For ready reference, they read as under:6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that in this case the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had held that tax at source was to be deducted on the composite contract including on supply of material. The Revenue's appeals are directed only against the direction of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for deletion of interest charged under Section 201(1A) of the Act for bot...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›