Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1997]225ITR1032(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated February 26, 1986, in respect of the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 of Abdul Karim Stone Contractor and for 1982-83 in the case of Raj. Flooring Stone Co. and Agarwal Flooring Stone Co. Kota :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow extra depreciation and investment allowance for dumpers which claim had not been put up by the assessees before the Income-tax Officer but was for the first time taken by them before the Commissioner of Income-tax in proceedings under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act ?'All the three matters are being disposed of by this common order as the question involved is common.2. The dispute in the present matter relates to the claim for depreciation on dumpers owned by the assessees. They derived income from owning of mines, extracting stones...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993(67)ELT483(Raj)
Rajesh Bhalla, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm, having an industry of re-rollers, manufacturing stainless steel product known as 'Patta'. The product manufactured by the petitioner was initially classified as 'sheet' or 'strips', falling under Sub-item (ii) of the Tariff Item No. 26AA of the Tariff Schedule, as it was then existing, under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1944'). The petitioner claimed that the product manufactured by it properly fall to be classified under Sub-item No. (ia) of the erstwhile Tariff Item No. 26AA. The petitioner based his claim on a decision given in the case of M/s. CD. Industries, by the Appellate Tribunal on 1-6-1984 and in the case of M/s. Ae Vee Iron & Steel Works Private Limited, Bombay, dated 29-5-1985. The Assessing Authority, namely, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jodhpur, rejected the assessee-petitioner's claim. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals). The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1998Raj165; 1998(1)WLC277
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. Petitioner was running the business of Carver Ivory, popularly known as Mammoth Ivory under the license as issued by the State which license stood renewed from year to year. There are certain restraints on his business which have been provided under the Wild Lite (Protection) Act. It is stated by him that because of certain amendments made in Sections 5, 27, 33, 34, 35 and 37 vide Act No. 44 of 1991 in the aforesaid Act, his livelihood has been effected and exercising powers under Section 49 of the Amended Act, he has been informed vide Annexure-4 dated 23-12-1991 to the effect that the import of ivory has been banned and, therefore, the petitioner is restrained from dealing with ivory in any and whatsoever manner subsequent to 29-2-1992. The letter Annexure-4 has given a cause of action to the petitioner for challenging the amended sections of Act 44 of 1991. It is stated by the petitioner that the provisions of the amended law do not and cannot have effect of pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2006CriLJ2477; 2006(1)WLC563
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. For the rape and murder of a helpless woman Rekha, appellants have been sentenced to death. Learned trial Judge has referred papers of this case for confirmation of death sentence whereas the appellants have challenged order of conviction and sentence recorded against them by filing appeals. Substantial questions of general importance and somewhat ticklish, involved in the case are whether Rajesh, presented as an approver by the prosecution around whose testimony almost entire case of prosecution rests, qualify as an approver in view of his statements made under Sections 164, 306, Cr. P.C. and his testimony before the Court where he completely exculpates himself and inculpates only appellants and whether from narration of facts given by him, he rather appears to be a protestor, preventor and to some extent, even a victim of the crime himself. The other question of equal significance that confronts the Court is that if testimony of Rajesh is discarded as approver whet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)ILLJ1066Raj; 1993(1)WLC641
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. An interesting question which arises for determination in this Revision Petition is as to whether jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes or District Court to hear Appeals against an order passed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short 'the Act of 1936') by a competent authority stands excluded by virtue of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act of 1985'). 2. An application under Section 15(2) of1936 Act was filed by respondent No. 2 before the Authority appointed under the Act of 1936, Sawaimadhopur, claiming a sum of Rs. 3,42,874.12. Respondent No. 2 alleged that he has unlawfully been deprived of the benefits flowing from his retrospective promotion to the higher post. 3. After hearing the parties, the Authority appointed under the Act of 1936 passed an order dated August 31, 1990 under Section 15(3) ofthe Act and directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 2,55,278.91 towards wages alongwith one time p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(4)WLC591
Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1996 and is having its registered office at New Delhi and a brewery at Daruheda, District Rewadi in State of Harayana. In favour of the petitioner, the respondent State of Rajasthan parted with its exclusive privilege to vend in wholesale excisable articles manufactured by it in the State of Rajasthan at village Ramchan-drapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur for the financial year 1998-99, the period of which was to expire on 31st March, 1999.2. The petitioner company had commenced operation in the year 1993 and the bonded warehouse was also established in Rajasthan in 1993. The petitioner had continued its operations under the licence until 1996. Thereafter, State of Harayana had imposed prohibition in that State. As a result, the manufacturing activities of the petitioner stood closed. However, when the State of Haryana revoked the prohibition in April, 1998, the petitioner restarted its manufacturing process and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1997Raj217; 1997(1)WLC218; 1996(2)WLN328
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. In the instant writ petition petitioner questions impugned order dated 29-6-96. Anx. 2, passed by the Chancellor nominating Dr. S. L, Verma, Retired Professor (Department of Political Science) of University of Rajasthan, as his nominee in the syndicate of Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur thereinafter referred as respondent University )w.e.f. 28-6-96 for a period, three years in supersession of his earlier order dated 15-9-95 a communication whereof is filed and marked as Anx. I.2. The genesis of challenge of the validity of the impugned order terminating petitioner stunure as nominated member of Syndicate of the respondent University before expiry of the period of three years is based on grounds inter-alia that power of the Chancellor to nominate a member of Syndicate under clause (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of Jai Narain Vyas University Jodhpur Act, 1962 thereinafter referred as Act No. 17 of 1962) stands exhausted with nomination of the petitioner.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2002Raj293; 2001(1)WLC709
Ashok Parihar, J. 1. Legislative Assembly elections, including Nainwa Assembly Constituency of the Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha, were held in the month of November, 1998. As per the programme notified by the Election Commission, nomination papers were to be filed upto 3.00 P.M. of 6.11.1998. Scrutiny of the nomination papers was to takeplace on 7.11.1998. The last date for withdrawal of candidature was 9.11.1998. The election (polling) took place on 25.11.1998 and the results were declared on 28.11.1998. Respondent, Mr. Prabhulal Karsolia, was declared elected defeating his nearest rival Mr. Hari Mohan Sharma, the petitioner, by 6335 votes.2. The present election petition has been filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground of improper rejection of the nomination paper of one Mr. Mahendra Singh Gurjar. The petitioner filed his nomination paper as a candidate of the Indian National Congress, a registered and recognised political party. The respondent filed his nomination paper as a candidate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(50)BLJR2508
Madan, J.1. The appellant (defendant) has challenged the judgment & decree dated 21.8.99 of the ADJ No. 2, Ajmer who allowed respondent's civil appeal No. 1/98 by setting aside trial Court's judgment dated 15.1.96 in civil suit No. 8/91, and accordingly granted decree of eviction against the tenant (appellant.2. Facts giving rise to this second appeal briefly stated, are that the plaintiffs (respondents-landlords) instituted a civil suit seeking decree of arrears of rent due from 1.1.1990 @ Rs. 50/-per month and for eviction of the defendant (appellant) from the suit shop described in the plaint on the grounds inter alia of-(1) default in making payment of regular & monthly rent @ Rs. 50/- from 1.1.1990, (2) denial of title of landlords (plaintiffs) as to the suit shop; and (3) bona fide and reasonable need of the plaintiffs.3. In written statement, the defendants denied the averments of the plaint to the effect that the plaintiffs had purchased Khasra Nos. 2098 & 2099, Christian Ganj ...
Tag this Judgment!