Allahabad Court August 1991 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 Income-tax Vs. Urmila Devi and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR464(All)
A.P. Miska, J.1. In the present applications under Section 250(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue has sought for reference of the following questions of law :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in vacating the order of the Commissioner of Income tax passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 19G1 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in following its earlier order holding that there was no material before the Commissioner of Income-lax to justify his findings that the assessment made under Section 143(1) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue?' 2. We find that similar questions of law were raised and decided by this court in the cases of CIT v. Smt. Brij Bala and CIT v. Smt. Nirmala Devi : [1989]180ITR427(All) . In view of the decision of this court, in the said cases, we allow these applications a...
Murlidhar Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2032
ORDERB.P. Singh, J.1. This is an application for revision against the judgment and order dated 6th July, 1990 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur, in Criminal Case No. 2303/90 (State v. Deoraj Prasad Patel) under Sections 406/420/379/411, IPC.2. Deoraj Prasad Patel, opposite party No. 2, is facing prosecution in the Court of the Magistrate at Mirzapur for the offences under Sections 406/420/379/411, IPC and a charge sheet has been filed against him in the case.3. Tata Mercedez Truck No. UPL 7947 (Chasis No. 342050 7617858 and (Engine No. 3125787618370) was initially purchased by one Ajit Lal and the truck in question was registered in his name. Murlidhar applicant purchased the truck in question from Ajit Lal for a consideration of Rs. 71000/-. As the applicant was short of money, he had taken financial assistance from Paras Financing company of Mirzapur. Thereafter, Paras Financing company took away the truck in question illegally without any authority and with the inten...
Scientific Instrument Co. Ltd. Vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1991
Reported in: 1992(41)LC53(Allahabad)
ORDER1. The controversy herein relates to the demand raised by the respondents with respect to the difference of duty arising from the final classification order dated 28.11.1989. It is necessary to state a few facts.2. The petitioner produces, inter alia, Lypholiser and vacuum plant. A question arose whether they constitute refrigerating machinery and air-conditioning parts and, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of exemption notification No. 155/86. The petitioner's case was that they do not constitute refrigeration and air-conditioning parts and, therefore, entitled to the benefit of exemption notification. He submitted two classification lists--one with effect from 1.3.88 and the other with effect from 1.4.88. These two lists were approved provisionally on 1.1.89 and 21.7.89 respectively under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules subject to the petitioner's following and complying with the procedure prescribed thereunder. Subsequently, on 28.11.89, final classification order was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›