Andhra Pradesh Court September 1969 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.
Engineers and Traders Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1969
Reported in: [1970]25STC278(AP)
Ramachandra Raju, J.1. In these two tax revision cases, a common question of law is involved. The assessee-firm is common and the question relates to some amounts of turnover. T.R.C. No. 33 is with regard to the turnover relating to the assessment year 1960-61 and T.R.C. No. 34 is with regard to the turnover relating to the assessment year 1961-62. The turnover in dispute relates to the supply of metal from quarries belonging to the assessee-firm to various customers engaged in the construction of bridges, formation and repairs of roads etc. The turnover for the assessment year 1960-61 consists of Rs. 2,09,034.99 nP. and for the assessment year 1961-62 it consists of Rs. 1,88,811.44 nP. The assessee-firm claimed exemption from tax on this turnover contending that they are the owners of the land from which the metal was quarried and they were paying land tax on that land and that what was extracted from the land belongs to themselves and they cannot be said to be dealers in respect of t...
Srikakulam Municipality Vs. M.V. Ranganadham
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1969
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT345
ORDER1. The short point arising for consideration in these revision petitions is whether the doctrine of res judicata operates as a bar to the maintainability of these actions. The suits are instituted by the Srikakulam Municipality represented by its Special Officer and Secretary and are laid against the same defendant for recovery of property tax due in respect of several items of property for the ear 1962-63 and 1963-64. The main defence is that the suits are bared because of earlier decisions in respect of the identical claims. Formerly suits were brought by the Municipal Council against the defendant for recovery of arrears of tax levied by it on the very same item of property. The suits related to the three years 1961-61 to 1963-64. The plaintiff succeeded in the suits but the defendant preferred appeals form the decrees of the trial court. The appeals related only to the two later years. The decree in respect of the first year was not the subject-matter of the appeal in any of t...
P.V.G. Raju Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-19-1969
Reported in: [1970]78ITR601(AP)
Gopalrao Ekbote, J. 1. This reference is made under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act of 1957, whereby answers are sought to the two following questions :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the department is correct in law in determining the status of the assessee as an individual and not as joint family ? 2. 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the department is correct in including 4/5th of Rs. 16,96,470.63, the compensation amount payable to the assessee in computing the 'net wealth' on the valuation dates June 30, 1956, and June 30, 1957, for the relevant assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 ?' 2. The material facts are : the assessee is Shri P.V.G. Raju, the Rajah Saheb of Vizianagaram. It is common ground that the assessee has two sons and all the three constitute a Hindu undivided family. The assessee claimed that he represented the assets not as individual but as Hindu undivided family in regard to properties which form the corpus of the imp...
Oversea Mica Exports Vs. Secretary, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1969
Reported in: [1970]25STC425(AP)
Madhava Reddi, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari is whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal filed before it under Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for default.2. The petitioner herein was assessed to sales tax for the year 1956-57 by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Gudur, on a turnover of Rs. 63,205.21. After an unsuccessful appeal to the Assistant Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, Guntur, he preferred a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on 6th March, 1968, under Section 21 of the Sales Tax Act. On 29th June, 1968, when the appeal was posted for hearing, as the appellant and his counsel were absent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default. The petition for restoration of this appeal was also dismissed on 17th April, 1969. It is not necessary to deal with the several other contentions in thi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dhanrajgiriji Raja
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-1969
Reported in: [1970]77ITR318(AP)
Ramachandra Raju, J.1. The following are the two questions which were referred for our decision in this reference:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any part of the expenditure incurred by the assesses in connection with the criminal proceedings initiated and conducted by the Government against Shri Ramgopal Ganpatrai was an allowable deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 ?2. If the answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative, whether there is any basis for estimating such allowable part of expenditure at l/3rd of the total ?'2. The reference relates to two assessments of the assessee for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52. The assessee, who is an individual, derived during the previous years under consideration income from various sources. The assessee claimed under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act of 1922, some deductions for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52, Rs. 39,657 for the assessment year 1950-51 and ...
Addepally Nageswara Rao and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-16-1969
Reported in: [1971]79ITR306(AP)
Gopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. This is a reference made to this court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), hereinafter called the ' Act ', and raises the following three questions :' (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to renewal of registration for the assessment year 1961-62 ? (2) Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction under Section 33B of the Act to set aside the order granting registration in the facts and circumstances of the case ? (3) Whether the assessee was afforded a reasonable opportunity by the Commissioner to present his defence ' 2. The facts out of which these questions arise may briefly be mentioned.3. The assessee is a firm known as Messrs. Addepalli Nageswara Rao & Brothers, Palakole, which consists of three major partners and one minor ; Nageswara Rao and his two brothers, Kasiviswanadham and Mareswara Rao, are the major partners; and Kamaraju, son of Nageswara Rao, is a minor. The firm was cons...
Anantha Naganna Chetty Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Prad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-1969
Reported in: [1970]78ITR743(AP)
Gopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 and arises in the following circumstances:The assessee is an individual. The assessment year is 1949-50. The assessee derived income form property, business, and share income form firms in which he was partner. he, however, failed to disclose his 14/16th share in the firm of Messrs. Revenue Siddeswara Oil Company for the assessment year. He contended that he had nothing to do with the firm and that he was a mere financier and that he was receiving only interest on the amount which he had supplied to the firm. This contention was rejected. He was ultimately assessed on the share of income form that film also. The department had also initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee for his omission to account for the share income from the said firm. The explanation of the assessee was that he has not concealed any particulars of his income and that he had advanced certain moneies to the firm...
J and J. Dechane Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-11-1969
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT487(AP)
Madhava Reddy, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the excess of excise duty collected from the petitioner by the respondents could be directed to be refunded in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. It is stated by the petitioner that while the excise duty was leviable at the rate of 2% the respondents collected it at the rate of 7%. This mistake was discovered by him only in a subsequent year during which excise duty was collected at 2%. The amount of excise duty collected in excess, according to the petitioner; is Rs. 9,322.72 P. On discovering this mistake, a petition for refund was filed by him on 23.6.1965. But the said petition was rejected in view of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which prescribes a period of three months within which such an application should be filed. Admittedly, the petition for refund was tiled beyond three months under Rule 1...
Venus Rubber Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1969
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT490(AP)
Kondaia, J.1. This application by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the requirement in the letter No. C.C.456 of 1969 dated 28.7.1969 of the Superintendent of Central Excise as invalid and that it is not necessary for the petitioners to obtain a licence under Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 (hereinafter called the Act.)2. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the petitioners are not manufacturing excisable goods within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act, that there is no notification made by the Central Government as required by Section 6 of the Act, and Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules made under the Act is not applicable to the petitioners and that the footwear below the value of Rs. 5/- per pair has been exempted by the Central Govt. by its notification under Section 3 dated 27-7-1967 and hence the petitioners are not required to take out a licence under the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Challapalli Sugars Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-05-1969
Reported in: [1970]77ITR392(AP)
Gopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the question referred is :'Whether the interest payment of Rs. 2,38,614 represents an element of the actual cost of the machinery, plant, etc., to the assessee and as such depreciation and development rebate are admissible with reference to this amount also ?'2. The essential facts are: The assessee in this case is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar. The company went into production from January 22, 1958. Its first accounting period which relates to 1959-60 assessment year ended on June 30, 1958. The company claimed depreciation and development rebate on the sums which they paid by way of interest. The payment of interest was Rs. 2,38,614. It appears that the company borrowed considerable sums of money from the Industrial Finance Corporation of India for the installation of machinery and other assets. It is on this borrowed capital that the interest wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »