Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1988)73CTR(Raj)255; [1988]174ITR346(Raj); [1988]39TAXMAN104(Raj)
J. S. VERMA C.J. - This common order shall dispose of both the above references, which relate to the same assessee. Reference No. 1 of 1982 relates to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1978-79, while Reference No. 2 of 1982 relates to the assessment year 1979-80.At the instance of the assessee the Tribunal has referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a common question of law arising out of the Tribunals order in respect of the above assessment years, for the decision of this court.The question of law as framed in Reference No. 1 of 1982 is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 8,506 and Rs. 10,720 pertaining to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1978-79, respectively, under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The question of law as framed in Reference No. 2 of 1982 is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2008)16VST387(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of 'sada pan masala', mixed with tobacco in the brand name of Geetanjali, Zafri 2100 Gutkha, etc. The petitioner as a manufacturer is subject to excise duty and is also liable to sales tax under the State sales tax or Central sales tax, as the case may be, in respect of the transactions of sale entered by it.2. Vide impugned notification dated January 3, 2001 'zarda mixed pan masala including gutkha and churi' was added to the list of commodities on which the levy of tax under the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999 was extended. The petitioner is aggrieved with the levy of tax under the Act of 1999 on its product when its brand is carried into local area of State of Rajasthan for use, consumption or sale within such local area. He has challenged the constitutional validity of the Act of 1999 and the aforesaid notification issued thereunder.3. Amongst other grounds, the petitioner has challenged the levy being u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995(2)WLN208
V.K. Singhal, J.1. Both the matters are disposed of by this single order since the question of law involved is common.2. In D.B. I.T. Reference No. 9/92 the following question of law has been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of assessment year 1987-88 under Section. 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:Whether on the facts and In the circumstances of the case the ITAT was legally justified in granting the benefits of amendment to Section 43B which was applicable w.e.f. asstt. year 1988-89 to the assessee in an appeal for an earlier year; thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 30,112/-made under Section. 43B.3. In D.B.I.T. Ref. No. 26/92 the following two questions have been referred:(1) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in directing that the amount of Rs. 92,122/-being the unpaid sales-tax on 4.11.1983 i.e. the last date of the previous year should not be disallowed under Section 43B if it Is found to have been paid (su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1987Raj83; 1987(1)WLN272
Dave, J.1. This larger Bench has been constituted by the orders of the Chief Justice, dt. July 3, 1986, to answer a question referred to larger Bench by our brother Hon'ble G. K. Sharma, J. vide his order of reference, dated May 28, 1986 wherein he has framed the following question :'Whether the judgment given in absence of the appellant or his counsel but the case decided on merits, can be re-called by the Court in its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C.'2. The petitioner, Habu, had filed a revision petition in this Court in the year 1978 challenging his conviction and sentence. This revision-petition was admitted on Oct. 25, 1978, and was ordered to be heard in due course on May 26, 1979. Thereafter it came up for hearing on Jan. 11, 1985 before Hon'ble Sharma, J. The accused petitioner who was on bail neither appeared in person npr his counsel was present and Hon'ble Sharma, J. after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor dismissed the revision-petition on merits. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(2)Raj884
Madan, J.1. Mahatma Gandhi National Institute of Medical Sciences (MGNIMS) (for short, petitioner institute) has sought an appropriate writ inter alia for (1) setting aside order dated 7.11.2001 (Ann. 17) having been passed upon counselling conducted on 2.11.2001 and thereby further directing the respondents to fill up remaining vacancies as per waiting list prepared after conducting admission exercise on 28.9.2001; (2) declaring that Principal of the petitioner Institute is entitled to be included in the Central UG Admission Board for admission in the medical colleges in future courses and (3) holding that the University, State Government so also Central UG admission Board are bound to follow the Medical Council of India Regulations (for brevity declaring cut off date as laid down in Unni Krishnan's case (1), and consequently for directing the respondents to complete all Central UG admission exercise with three months after declaration of the result so as to complete medical courses w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
Sunil Ambwani, ACJ. 1. We have heard Ms. Indira Jai Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aditya Shrivastava, Ms. Bindu N. Doddahat and Mr. Satish Kumar for the petitioners in DBCWP No.375/2015-Dulari Devi and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and DBCWP No.376/2015- Norati and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.; Mr. Rajendra Soni in DBCWP No.1/2015, Mr. Pradeep Kalwania in DBCWP No.209/2015; Shri S.S. Hora in DBCWP Nos.503/2015 and 504/2015; Mr. Vijay Choudhary in DBCWP No.251/2015, Mr. Hanuman Choudhary in DBCWP No.250/2015, Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj in DBCWP Nos.121/2015 and 122/2015, and Mr. Bharat Yadav for the petitioners. Mr. Narpal Mal Lodha, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Vishal Soni, Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Anurag Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. R.B. Mathur, appear for the State of Rajasthan and other respondents. 2. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1990(1)WLN351
Milap Chandra, J.1. The first revision petition has been filed against the orders of the learned Munsif, Jodhpur City dated August 12, 1988 and December 20, 1988. By the first order, he has dismissed the application of the judgment debtor-petitioner dated August 3, 1988 praying for not issuing warrant for the delivery of possession against him. By the second order, the review application dated August 26, 1988 has been dismissed. The second revision petition has been filed against the order dated April 21, 1989 by which the learned Munsif has rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner moved in Original Suit No. 97/78 for not amending the decree in compliance with the said order dated August 12, 1988 The facts of the case giving rise to these revision petitions may be summarised thus.2. Suit No. 97/78 was filed by the pLalntiff-non-petitioner Devi Singh against the defendent-petitioner Shyam Sunder for the recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment on the grounds of defaults in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009ACJ1806; RLW2007(3)Raj2512
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act of 1988V'the new Act') has been preferred by the insurer of the vehicle involved in accident against the award dated 30.01.1993 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balotra in Claim Case No. 1/1990 essentially contending on its limited liability; and also questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in the sum of Rs. 5,25,000/-, to the wife and parents of 22 years' old accident victim Sanjay Kumar alias Khem Chand.2. Brief facts relevant for determination of the questions involved in this appeal are that on 24.07.1989 at about 4.30 p.m., the victim Sanjay Kumar with his wife Smt. Shilpa (claimant No. 1), his friend Mahendra Kumar, and friend's wife Smt. Rekha while travelling in a Maruti car bearing registration No. RJW 7281 and returning back from their pilgrimage to Nakoda met with the accident near Parasdham on Balotra-Nakoda route for head-on collision of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2002)75TTJ(NULL)172
ORDERB.L. Khatri, A.M.This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, for assessment year 2000-2001. The appellant agitated on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of assessing officer for enhancing the interest under sub-section 234B and 234C. Enhancement of interest under sections 234B and 234C cannot be made by resorting to the provisions of section 143(1)(a)/154.2. In this case the return of income filed by the assessee on 30-10-2000, was processed in a summary manner undertion 143(1)(a) as returned income on 9-11-2000. While processing the case under section 143(1)(a) certain variation was made by assessing officer in calculation of interest under sections 234B and 234C.3. On being aggrieved by the intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, the assessee moved an application under section 154 for rectification in the interest so charged under section 234C. This application was rejected b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
TILOK SINGH & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10339/12 ) & 89 connected matters. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER1 TILOK SINGH & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10339/12 ) 2. NATHULAL BAMANIYA & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.9435/13) 3. VIMLESH PALIWAL & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11058/13) 4. BABU SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11796/13) 5. HITESH PARIHAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6968/13) 6. RAM NARAYAN GURJAR & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2870/11) 7. DEEPAK SINGH CHARAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10106/13) 8. RAJESH KHATIK & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2945/13) 9. MAHAVEER PRASAD PUROHIT & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.230/13) ...
Tag this Judgment!