Andhra Pradesh Court January 1980 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, Andhra Pradesh Vs. K. Krishnaiah Chetty an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1980
Reported in: [1981]131ITR410(AP)
Madhava Reddy, J. 1. The question referred for the decision of this court is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest of Rs. 5,915, Rs. 1,641 and Rs. 2,053 paid by the assessee to (1) K. Krishnaiah Chettya (loan account), (2) K. Thimmappa Padmavathamma (HUF account), and (3) K. V. Raghavulu Gupta Sujatamma (HUF account), respectively, can be disallowed under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee, a registered firm of three partners sharing profits and losses equally, claimed deduction of interest under s. 40(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the ground that the interest was paid not to any partner of the firm but to the respective HUFs of which the three partners were the members. The accounts of the firm showed that initially the amount of capital was credited in the names of the individual partners but the account relevant for the assessment years in question showed the capital of the firm credited in the name of the HUFs and the i...
Hakeem Rahimullah Khan Vs. Syed Sabir Alias Syed Makhdeem and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ395
Madhava Reddy, J. 1. Upon the presentation of a petition under Sections 2, 12, and 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to this Court, the Registry has raised among others, the following objections. 1. Material papers containing all documents referred to in the petition or affidavit should be filed in triplicate duly stitched in book form, paged indexed and authenticated. 2. Batta should be paid for notice to the respondent. 2. The first of these objections is more of form rather than of substance but nonetheless a matter requiring consideration of the Courts for it emphasises the necessity for framing appropriate rules of procedure to govern proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The first objection is really composed of two parts. The first part is that all documents referred to in the petition should be filed as material papers along with the petition and secondly that it should be filed in triplicate, stitched in book form, paged, indexed and authenticated. 3. A peti...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Kovur Textiles and Co.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-24-1980
Reported in: [1982]136ITR61(AP)
Raghuvir, J. 1. This reference is made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), for opinion of this court on the following questio : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss incurred by the assessee can be allowed as an admissible deduction in computing the income for the assessment year 1971-72 ?' 2. The assessee is a limited company. It had contributed to a 'chit fund' known as Rajarajeswari Financiers for Rs. 25,000 and by September, 1969, had paid eleven instalments. Finally, the company did the chit for Rs. 20,000 on June 20, 1970. The company by that date had paid eleven instalments and had executed a promissory note for Rs. 14,000. In the further facts found, the company as per accounts of the chit fund had received Rs. 1,437 as discount money in the bids made by other contributors. 3. The company contributed to another 'chit fund' for Rs. 5,000 with monthly instalment of Rs. 250 and paid t...
Kopparan Venkatappa Chetty and ors. Vs. Udaysankar Royal Varu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1980
Reported in: AIR1981AP34
Madhava Reddy, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Estate Abolition Tribunal, Chittoor in O.P. No. 39 of 1965 rejecting the claim of the appellants herein for payment of compensation in respect of Kothapalle inam estate and awarding the same to the respondents herein, who were the petitioner? in O.P. No. 62 of 1965 on the file of the same Tribunal and who claimed that the said village, Kothappalle formed part of Punganur estate. The claims of both the parties, who had filed separate applications for payment of compensation, were disposed of by a common order now under appeal.2. Punganur estate, admittedly an important impartible estate, was notified in the year 1950 and was taken over in the year 1951 under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryolwari) Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). At that time, a dispute was raised that Kothapalle Village along with some other villages referred to as Gumkonda group of villages was an inam estate and t...
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Kovvuri Paparddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-23-1980
Reported in: AIR1980AP202
Seetharam Reddy, J.1. These two revisions arise out of a reference wherein a common point is involved, and that is: Whether the lands, which have been registered as wet and included in the B-schedule of the localisation G. O., have to be classified as double crop wet lands or single crop wet lands, when the second crop has been raised from the private source of water and not from the authorised source of water, within the meaning of Section 3 (d) of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Act'; and whether the onus is on the landholder or the Government to establish that private source of water was resorted to because of non availability or non supply of water from the authorised source.2. The chief contention of the learned Government Pleader is that once lands are included in the B-Schedule of the localisation g. O. and registered as Wet', they have to be treated as 'double crop wet lands' unless it is established by evidence...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Penumatsa Venkata Raju
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1980
Reported in: AIR1981AP22
ORDER1. The only point that arises for consideration is whether service or communication to the counsel of the declarant is the proper service or communication to the party within the meaning of Rule 16 (9) of the Rules framed under the Land Ceiling Act. Rule 16 (9) reads under :'Every notice or summons issued or order passed by the Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collector, Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, shall be served or communicated to the persons concerned either by personal delivery to him or where the above course is not feasible, by sending It by post under the certificates of posting to his address at the last known place of residence'.2. It is quite evident from the above rule that a particular mode has been prescribed by the statute and non-compliance of the statutory rule would nullify the proceedings, this view has been taken by this Court on more than one occasion. My learned brother Madhava Reddy J. in K. Chmna Nagiah v. Spl. Tahsilda...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›