Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-03-1990
Reported in : AIR1992Raj108; 1991(2)WLC540; 1990WLN(UC)377
A.K. Mathur, J. 1. This legislation has a chequered history and this is third round. On two previous occasions the similar provisions had come up for interpretation before this Court and now this is third time it is coming over again.2. This order will dispose of all the writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule appended to this order.3. In order to appreciate the controversy and points involved in these writ petitions the facts of Pal Bus Service v. State of Rajasthan. (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 982/1989) are taken into consideration for the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule appended to this order.4. The petitioner is an existing operator of the route Suratgarh to Hanumangarh via Manakthedi, Jakhadawali, Kalibanga etc. which was formerly 83 Kms. in length and thereafter due to certain extension it became 95 Kms. in lenghth, During the year 1973-74 the aforesaid route Suratgarh to Hanumangarh had scope of 6:4 and in pursuance thereof 6 permits...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-08-1990
Reported in : (1991)92CTR(Raj)88; [1992]195ITR769(Raj)
K.C. Agrawal, C.J. 1. The petitioner, a Hindu undivided family, was assessed to income-tax. In 1968, a plot of land at Chandigarh in sector 17-C was purchased. Constructions were, thereafter, started over the plot in 1969. It continued up to 1975, relevant for the assessment year 1976-77. During the assessment years 1968-69 to 1976-77, the petitioner disclosed investments in the construction of the house at Chandigarh as under : (Rs.)19686945,000.001969-701,38,859.001970-711,01,374.001971-7285,416.001972-7368,699.001973-741,39,257.001974-7548,000.001975-761,20,230.001976-7722,062.00Total7,68,897.002. Thus, the total investment up to 1976-77 shown by the petitioner was in the sum of Rs. 7,68,897. 3. Assessments for the years 1968-69 to 1973-74 were simultaneously taken up and completed by the Income-tax Officer, Special Ward, Ajmer, On May 13, 1974. In the said assessment proceedings, the petitioner submitted a letter dated April 29, 1974, detailing therein the amount ofinvestment and s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-06-1990
Reported in : 1990WLN(UC)120
ORDER SECURITY FORCE HELD ON 30.5.1970.The Departmental Promotion Committee set up in the Ministry of Home Affairs for considering the cases of promotion of Assistant Commandants to the rank of Deputy Commandant in the BSF met on 30.5.1970 in the room of Joint Secretary (P), Ministry of Home Affairs.2. The Committee examined the recommendations of the Central Promotion Board and also scrutinised the Confidential Charactar Rolls of all the officers who were recommended for promotion and also those who had not been recommended.3. The total number of sanctioned posts of Deputy Commandant/Joint Assistant Directors in the Force is 102. The number of vacancies in this cadre is 52.4. According to the Promotion Rules, an Assistant Commandant with 6 years of Service is eligible for promotion as Deputy Commandant. The number of Assistant Commandants from the various sources who had become eligible for promotion is given below: (1) Dy. SPS on deputation.......... 22(2) ACs of EC-1 batch.............
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-13-1990
Reported in : 1990WLN(UC)366
A.K. Mathur, J.1. All these reference mentioned in the Schedule appended to this order involve common question of law, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The argument were heard at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur as well as the Bench at Jaipur.2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in all these references, the facts of D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 20/84: Commissioner of Income-tax Jodhpur v. M/s Ambica Electrolytic Capacitors Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur are taken into consideration for the convenient disposal of the these references:3. The facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee received subsidy from the Central Government twice in different amounts. The Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation on building, plant and machinery after excluding these two amounts or subsidy. The contention of the assessee was that the subsidy was not given by the Central Government to meet out the cost of assets directly or indirectly within the meaning of Section ...
Tag this Judgment!