Andhra Pradesh Court December 1982 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.
Nava Bharat Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-27-1982
Reported in: [1983]143ITR805(AP)
Jeevan Redddy, J. 1. Three questions are referred to us under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. They are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in disallowing the assessee's claim for deduction of guest house expenses in terms of section 37(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and rule 6C(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not allowing the assessee's claim for deduction of the sum of Rs. 6,000 towards entertainment expenditure and Rs. 74,604 towards business promotion expenses for the assessment years 1968-69 and Rs. 1,69,280 for the assessment year 1969-70 under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, holding that the said amounts constituted entertainment expenditure not allowable in terms of section 37(2A) of the Act (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circum...
Nava Bharat Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-27-1982
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(AP)92; [1983]143ITR804(AP)
JEEVAN REDDDY J. - Three questions are referred to us under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. They are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in disallowing the assessees claim for deduction of guest house expenses in terms of section 37(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and rule 6C(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not allowing the assessees claim for deduction of the sum of Rs. 6,000 towards entertainment expenditure and Rs. 74,604 towards business promotion expenses for the assessment years 1968-69 and Rs. 1,69,280 for the assessment year 1969-70 under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, holding that the said amounts constituted entertainment expenditure not allowable in terms of section 37(2A) of the Act (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances...
Andhra Pradesh Rice Bran Solvent Extractors' Association and Anr. Vs. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-24-1982
Reported in: AIR1983AP206
Chennakesav Reddi, J.1. In these writ petitions, the validity of the Andhra Pradesh livestock feed (levy) and Restriction on sale order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Livestock feed sale sale order) is challenged. The main and real focus of the controversy centred round the validity of the declared price under Cl. 3 of the Live Stock Feed sale order, which also embraces the question whether Live stock Feed as defined in the said order is an 'essential commodity' as defined in s. 2(a) of the Essential commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The livestock Feed sale order was made by the Government of Andhra pradesh with the prior concurrence of the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3 of the Essential commodities Act, 1955 read with the Government of India, Ministry of Industry and civil Supplies (Department of civil Supplies and co-operation) orders No. G.S. r. 681 (E) and No. G.S. R. 682 (E), dated the 30th November 1974. The order came...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Kodandarama and Company ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-1982
Reported in: [1983]144ITR395(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The assessee in these five referred cases are dealers in paddy, rice, broken rice, etc., in West Godawari District. They are millers as well. In their returns filed for the assessment year 1973-74, they claimed deduction of the amounts paid by them to the Andhra Pradesh Welfare Fund, West Godawari District (Branch Eluru), as business expenditure, under s. 37(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961. The assessee case was that it was an expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred in the course of business and that, unless the said payment to the welfare fund was made no permits for export of boiled rice to the State of Kerala would be issued by the District Collector. The ITO, however disallowed the deduction holding that the said payment was neither mandatory nor statutory, but only discretionary. He observed that the expenditure could not be said to have been incurred wholly and necessarily for the purpose of the assessees' business. He took note of the fact that the said welfare ...
Padma Oil Company and ors. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-1982
Reported in: [1983]54STC364(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The petitioners are dealers in groundnut oil, etc. Groundnuts are covered by item 6 of the Third Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioners along with other dealers filed a batch of writ petitions in this Court challenging the entry on the ground that the point of levy of tax is uncertain and therefore the entry is not effective. Having filed the writ petitions the petitioners applied for stay of collection of tax. This Court, however, ordered that assessment shall be completed but that the tax shall not be collected pending orders of this Court. The batch of writ petitions were later dismissed in toto, against which order the petitioners went to the Supreme Court admitted the appeals and granted stay in the first instance but subsequently on the application of the State, the Supreme Court directed the petitioners to pay tax due in three equal quarterly instalments. The petitioners have accordingly paid the tax. Subsequently the appea...
The Base Repair Organisation (Now Naval Dock Yard) Vs. the State of An ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-1982
Reported in: [1983]53STC223(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner 'Base Repair Organisation', now called 'Naval Dock Yard' Visakhapatnam, is maintained by the Defence Ministry for repairing and servicing the ships of the Indian Navy. As required by section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948, the petitioner runs a canteen, to cater to the needs of its employees. The petitioner says that it is running the canteen on 'no-profit-no-loss' basis. For the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-II, Visakhapatnam, treated the turnover of the canteen as taxable turnover under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, and levied tax thereon. The petitioner's contention was that it's canteen activity carried on to comply with a statutory obligation is not 'business', and that it is not a 'dealer' as defined by the Act and therefore not liable to pay any tax. This contention was overruled by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal. The matter was carried in se...
Commissioner of Gift-tax, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Chalasani Subbayya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1982
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(AP)303; [1983]144ITR295(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The question referred for our opinion under 26(1) of the G. T. Act, 1958, is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the CA, the amount of Rs. 81,915, being the value of assessee's share of the goodwill is liable to gift-tax in the assessment year 1967-68?' 2. The facts relevant to the question are the following : The assessee, Shri Chalasani Subbayya, an individual, was a partner in a firm, M/s. Chalasani Subbayya and Sons, holding 54/100ths share. There were only two partners in the firm including the assessee. On April 9, 1967, the assessee relinquished his entire share in the firm with effect from March 31, 1967, allowing the other partner, Shri Chalasani Satyanarayana, to take over the entire business. The GTO was of the opinion that 'such surrender of share of profits amounted to increasing the value or quantum of the share held by the other partner to 100% and in accordingly liable to he treated as a gift within the meaning of s. 4 (a) and (c) of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Indian Detonators Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1982
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(AP)74; [1983]143ITR547(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. This referred case raises question as to the construction of r. 4 in Sch. II to the C.(P.) S.T. Act, 1964. 2. Rule 4 reads as follows : 'Where a part of the income, profits and gains of a company is not includible in its total income as computed under the Income-tax Act, its capital shall be the sum ascertained in accordance with rules 1, 2 and 3, diminished by an amount which bears to that sum the same proportion as the amount of the aforesaid income, profits and gains bears to the total amount of its income, profits and gains.' 3. The question is whether the words 'a part of the income, profits and gains of a company is not includible in its total income as computed under the Income-tax Act' refer to and take in the deduction granted under s. 80J of the I.T. Act. 4. The C. (P.) S.T. Act. 1964, is enacted to impose a special tax on the profits of certain companies. 'Chargeable profits' is defined in clause (5) of s. 2 to mean the total income of an assessee computed...
S. Anjaiah Setty Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1982
Reported in: [1983]53STC262(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. In these cases, the two assessees, filed their returns but did not enclose forms I (contemplated by the Fifth Schedule to the Act) as required by rule 6-A of the rules. After they filed their returns, the first assessing authority gave a show cause notice on 8th August, 1977, calling upon the assessees to file their accounts within a week therefrom. On 13th August, 1977, both the assessees filed a joint application requesting for 15 days' time for producing their accounts. On 16th August, 1977, the assessing authority completed the assessment, and because forms I were not produced by the assessees, sales tax was levied on the turnover of jaggery also. The assessees appealed and complained that in spite of asking for time the assessing authority did not give an opportunity for producing forms I. The appellate authority rejected this complaint holding that the time asked for in the application filed by the assessees on 13th August, 1977, was not for producing forms I ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh Vs. B. Pandaiah and Company
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-1982
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(AP)84; [1983]143ITR464(AP)
Jeevan Reddy J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, has referred the following question for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing registration to the firm, M/s. B. Pandaiah and Co., for the assessment year 1973-74 ?' 2. The facts relevant to the question are. The appellant-firm consisting of two partners was carrying on business in kirana goods, etc. The two parties, who are brothers, admitted their brother who is congenitally deaf and dumb, to the benefits of the partnership. A partnership deed was executed an October 20,1972, giving one-third share in the profits to the said brother, but making him not liable for the losses. As application for registration under s. 184 of the Indian I.T. Act was made, signed only by the two partner-brothers. The ITO was satisfied that the application was in order and that the firm was genuine but refused registrati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »