Andhra Pradesh Court June 1978 Judgments
Super Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1978
Reported in: [1979]120ITR512(AP)
A. Sambasiva Rao, C.J.1. M/s. Super Spinning Mills Ltd., Hindupur, is a public limited company. Financial year is its accounting year. For the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee-company claimed, for the purpose of assessment of surtax, inclusion in its capital two sums of Rs. 28,43,984 and Rs. 1,93,577. That was on the basis that on the first day of the accounting year, i.e., on April 1, 1970, the aforesaid amounts were shown in the balance-sheet under 'general reserve' and '80K tax-free dividend reserve', respectively. It was the assessee's claim that in the computation of capital under Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, these two amounts should be included. The ITO declined to do so and excluded the said two amounts from the computation of the capital of the company. The AAC in the assessee's appeal upheld its claim in part. He held that the amounts standing in the general reserve account at the beginning of the year was a reserve for the pu...
Tag this Judgment!Orugunati Ranganayakamma Vs. Maduri Lakshminarasamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-1978
Reported in: AIR1979AP8
ORDER1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the 2nd defendant against the order of the District Munsif, Chirala where under he allowed the Petition of the plaintiff for the appointment of a Commissioner to examine a witness for the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff laid a suit for declaration and possession of certain properties on the strength of a will said to have been executed by one Krishnavenamma on 7-11-1969. The case of the plaintiff, who is the sister of the said Krishnavenamma, is that prior to the death of Krishnavenamma, she was undergoing treatment at a Hospital at Ongole and that on 7-11-1969, she executed a will in the Hospital. The said Krishnavennamma died later, on 14-12-1969. The 2nd defendant is said to he the daughter of the Said Krishnavenarnma. The will purports to bequeath the entire properties of Krlshnavenamma in favour of the plaintiff for the exclusion of the 2nd defendant. The suit is resisted by the 2nd defendant inter alia on the ground that the said will is...
Tag this Judgment!K. Subramanya Naidu and anr. Vs. Adilakshmiammal and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-1978
Reported in: AIR1978AP464
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order of the learned District Munsif, Satyavedu, directing the plaintiff to value the relief of injunction sought by him at Rs. 1,000/- instead of at Rs.300/- as sought to be valued by him. The petitioner is the defendant. According to the defendant the market value of the properties involved in the suit is over Rs. 25,000/- and therefore the learned District Munsif ought not to have arbitrarily fixed the value of the relief at Rupees 1,000/-. He contends that an enquiry should have been held into the question as to how the relief of injunction should be valued and thereafter only the value should be fixed. There is nothing on record to show that the learned District Munsiff did not permit the parties to adduce any evidence if they so desired. Under S. 26(c) of the A. P. Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, the relief of injunction need not be valued at the market value of the property involved in the suit. The plaintiff is ent...
Tag this Judgment!i. Navakoti Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, Nellore
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-1978
Reported in: AIR1979AP11
Raghuvir, J.1. Navakoti, the writ petitioner the appellant was accorded a temporary permit for the route Nellore to Jaldanki. The State-carriage A. P. N. No.7209 on that route is required to cross a Railway level crossing at Bitragunta Railway station. On 7-3-1974 the Motor Vehicles Inspector. Kavali checked A.P.N. No. 7209 at 7-55 p.m. at Konda Bitragunta level crossing and submitted report No.14271 to the authorities. A show cause notice was issued on 11-3-1974 to the petitioner, based on the facts of the report, as to why a difference of tax in Rs. 510/- and penalty of Rs. 1,020/- should not be collected. The petitioners averred in his explanation on 15-3-1974 the vehicle A.P.N. No.7209 with thirty passengers reached Bitragunta level crossing at 5-15 p.m. on its onward journey to Nellore. The level crossing gate was closed and remained closed upto 7-30 p.m. The Stage-carriage for a long time was thus detained. The passengers became 'restive' for the gate remained closed for two hour...
Tag this Judgment!Hyderabad Race Club Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-1978
Reported in: [1979]120ITR185(AP)
A. Sambasiva Rao, C.J. 1. The question which the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to the High Court at the instance of the assessee is : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee was entitled to deduction of a sum of Rs. 22,169 only being 55% of 10% of the total income? ' 2. This question arose while making the assessment for the assessment year 1969-70. Therefore, the question will have to be answered in the light of the law as it then existed. We are not concerned with the later amendments to Section 80G. 3. A plain reading of the section itself leads to no alternative but to answer the question in favour of the assessee and to hold that he was entitled to deduction of a larger sum than Rs. 22,169. The Tribunal was clearly wrong in taking the view that Sub-section (4) of Section 80G entitled the assessee to a deduction of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Deccan Automobiles.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-1978
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(AP)1
Madhava Rao, J. - The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax made a reference to this Court, which is as under :-'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the internal audit partys note did not constitute information so as to give the ITO jurisdiction u/s 147(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to reopen the assessment.'2. To answer the reference a few facts that are necessary, are noted below :The respondent is an assessee-firm carrying on business in automobile spare parts. The firm initially consisted of six partners and was constituted under a deed dated 3-101966. Its accounting year ended with 30th September. On 13-5-1968 one of the partners, by name M. R. Patel, died. On 14-51968 two new partners were taken in the place of the deceased partner and from that date the firm the assessment year 1969-70,one for the period 1-10-1967 to 13-5-1968 and the other for the period from 14-5-1968 to 30-9-19...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›