Allahabad Court January 1990 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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sadi Ram Ganga Prasad (Huf)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-01-1990
Reported in: [1990]182ITR341(All)
1. These are five applications under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act. They have been filed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. Three questions have been raised in each of the applications. Similar questions were raised for assessment year 1976-77. The Tribunal had referred questions Nos. 1 and 2. The Department wanted same questions as are raised in these applications to be referred. But this court rejected the application as the questions raised were wide enough to cover all the aspects. Since the first two questions raised in these applications are the same and raised the same question of law and the circumstances are also identical, namely, the Tribunal has already made reference, we do not find any justification to call for any reference.2. Question No. 3 raises a question of fact. The valuation of ornaments does not raise any question of law. The submission made by learned standing counsel that the first valuer's report was not taken into consideration has no substance. The Com...
Paharpur Cooling Tower Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-01-1990
Reported in: 1991LC341(Allahabad); 1990(47)ELT235(All)
A.N. Verma, J.1. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the excise duty said to have been paid by them under a mistake of law in respect of what has been described as scantlings.2. Shortly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner carries on the business of designing and erecting cooling towers as per requirements of its customers. In erecting these cooling towers the petitioner obtains logs of timber, which are converted by them into scantlings. Treating this as an item of excisable commodity, the petitioner paid excise duty thereon during the period 1-3-1975 to 17-11-1980. The petitioner, however, discovered through a judgment of the Supreme Court dated 9-5-1980 in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers reported in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 343 (S.C.) and the principle underlying that decision that scantlings were not liable to excise duty. The petitioner accordingly applied to the respon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›