Differ - Judgment Search Results

Deaver Vs. United States

Court: US Supreme Court

deaver v united states 483 u s 1301 1987 u s supreme court deaver v united states 483 u s...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Board

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1988]173ITR579(Cal)

dipar kumak sen j 1 in this application the commissioner of income tax west bengal i calcutta seeks a certificate...

ins Vs. Cardoza-fonseca

Court: US Supreme Court

..... concluded that in practical application they are comparable or essentially comparable and that the differences between them are not meaningful but the agency never stated that they are identical ..... appeals repeated its position that the standards for asylum and withholding of deportation are different according to that court an asylum applicant must present specific facts through objective evidence .....

Parkash Singh Badal and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Reported in: AIR1987P& H263

..... shiromani akali longowal ticket to the punjab vidhan sabha and that on account of fundamental differences with s surjit singh barnala chief minister punjab respondent no 7 the present leader of ..... settle the disputes mutually would naturally elect to entrust the resolving of their disputes and differences to someone amongst themselves who would inspire confidence in regard to his objectivity and fair .....

Mccleskey Vs. Kemp

Court: US Supreme Court

..... capital sentencing decision and the relationship of the statistics to that decision are fundamentally different from the corresponding elements in the venire selection or title vii cases petitioner s ..... capital sentencing decision and the relationship of the statistics to that decision are fundamentally different from the corresponding elements in the venire selection or title vii cases most .....

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Shyam Mohan Rawat

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur

Reported in: (1988)25ITD105(JP.)

..... a difficult proposition and could not agree with the conclusion the difference was quite acute because the learned accountant member had framed ..... is large before the items of jewellery can be sold different permutations combinations settings etc have to be made some items ..... revisional i have to strictly confine to the point of difference of opinion and express my opinion thereon within facts found .....

Swastik Household and Industrial Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1988)25ITD479(Mum.)

..... the direction of the iac therefore the ito ascertained the difference between the actual value of the assets transferred and the ..... point of view a compulsorily withheld tax outside india cannot be different in concept from a compulsory expenditure or other outgoing only ..... noted that the appellate assistant commissioner as also the two differing members had held that that case was one of slump .....

M.P. Udyog Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

Reported in: (1989)28ITD85(All.)

..... counsel for the assessee either did not lay down any different principle or were distinguishable on their own facts he further ..... appeals the two learned members who heard the case came to different conclusions the learned accountant member vide his order held as ..... the conclusion of the learned accountant member accordingly the point of difference of opinion was stated as below whether on the facts .....

Turner Vs. Safley

Court: US Supreme Court

..... corrections the first permits correspondence between immediate family members who are inmates at different institutions within the division s jurisdiction and between inmates concerning legal matters but ..... here the first of the challenged regulations relates to correspondence between inmates at different institutions it permits such correspondence with immediate family members who are inmates in .....

Goodman Vs. Lukens Steel Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

..... to personal injuries would measure the period of liability under 1981 the court of appeals differing with the district court held that the 2 year statute of limitations controlled but affirmed ..... be characterized as either a 1981 and or 1983 claim and thereby receive different limitations treatment if a different statute were applied under 1981 such variations however are commonplace in the law .....