Allahabad Court August 1995 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.
Akhilesh NaraIn Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR711(All)
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the assessee-applicant and Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal representing the opposite party.2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the application, in the opinion of this court, the following question of law does arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal :'Whether there was any material before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to hold that construction of shops in question was completed in the accounting year, relevant to the assessment year 1986-87 and, consequently, the unexplained investment of rupees one lakh was taxable in that year ?'4. The Tribunal is, accordingly, directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question of law to this court....
Vishal Packagings Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1995
Reported in: 1995LC186(Allahabad); 1995(80)ELT787(All)
ORDER1. Heard Sri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, None appears on behalf of the respondents.2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner in respect of excise duty.3. Sri Mathur submitted that as a matter of fact the excise duty in question was not required to be paid by the petitioner under the provisions of the Excise Act, and therefore in view of the provisions of Section 11B(3) of the Excise Act, the amount paid by the petitioner towards excise duty is liable to be refunded to him.4. Sri Mathur further submitted that the petitioner by means of an application applied for refund of the amount which was rejected. However, the appellate authority vide its order dated 25-10-1989 allowed the petitioner's appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for refund of the amount vide Annexure A-5, and the same is stated to be pending.5. In between the Apex Court i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›