Andhra Pradesh Court September 1986 Judgments
Sri Krishna Finance Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: [1987]169ITR611(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. These two references arise from a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in two appeals, I.T.A. No. 126/Hyd/1976-77 and I.T.A. No. 127/Hyd/1976-77. R.C. No. 131 of 1981 arises from I.T.A. No. 127/Hyd/1976-77, while R.C. No. 152 of 1982 arises from I.T.A. No. 126/Hyd/1976-77. The question referred in R. C. No. 131 of 1981 is the following : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, having found Sri Goverdhana Finance Corporation, Kadiri, has satisfied the requirements that are enjoined by law to claim registration, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that its income and that of Sri Krishna Finance Corporation be clubbed together and assessed collectively ?' 2. The question referred in R. C. No. 152 of 1982 is the following : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee-firm is entitled to the benefits of registration for the assessment...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chitra Kalpana
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(AP)215; [1987]169ITR678(AP)
Anjaneyulu, J.1. This reference arises under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). The reference is made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The question referred for consideration of this court is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 40,000 paid to two partners, Sri M. Venkataramana and Sri Laxminarayana, are allowable in view of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 196 ?' 2. A partnership firm consisting of three partners, M. Venkataramana, S. Laxminarayana alias Bapu and N. S. Murthy, was constituted under a deed of partnership dated February 23, 1969. It was agreed that the partnership firm shall carry on the business of production, distribution and exploitation of films, and also that of taking on lease territorial rights in films for dubbing and exploitation and any other business incidental thereto, in the name and style of 'CHITRA KALPANA'. The partnership d...
Tag this Judgment!1. Sri Krishna Finance Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax. (R. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: (1988)61CTR(AP)147; [1988]169ITR611(AP); [1988]35TAXMAN373(AP)
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY J. - These two references arise from a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in two appeals, I.T.A. No. 126/Hyd/1976-77 and I.T.A. No. 127/Hyd/1976-77. R.C. No. 131 of 1981 arises from I.T.A. No. 127/Hyd/1976-77, while R.C. No. 152 of 1982 arises from I.T.A. No. 126/Hyd/1976-77. The question referred in R. C. No. 131 of 1981 is the following :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, having found Sri Goverdhana Finance Corporation, Kadiri, has satisfied the requirements that are enjoined by law to claim registration, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that its income and that of Sri Krishna Finance Corporation be clubbed together and assessed collectively ?'The question referred in R. C. No. 152 of 1982 is the following :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee-firm is entitled to the benefits of registration for the assessment year 1...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. HussaIn Peeran Vs. Kadapala Venkata Ramana Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-1986
Reported in: AIR1989AP62
ORDER1. This revision petition is against the order declining to entertain the application under Order 21, Rule 2, C.P.C. for recording satisfaction of the decree.2. The petitioner filed an application stating that the properties belonging to him are brought to sale in execution of the decree and the claim petition filed by him was dismissed for default. Subsequently pursuant to the panchayat he paid a sum of Rs. 5,500/-in full settlement of the decretal amount and obtained a receipt from the respondent-decree-holder. The decree-holder denied the allegations about the panchayat and also the payment of the decretal amount. When the petition has come up for hearing, the decree-holder took a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the application under Order 21, Rule 2, C.P.C. at the instance of the third party. The preliminary objection is upheld by the Court below.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Order 21, Rule 2, C.P.C. does not preclude the party from...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Venkateswara Transmission (P.) Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-1986
Reported in: [1988]171ITR476(AP)
Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax seeks reference of the following question in connection with income-tax assessment year 1980-81 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 1,15,000 incurred by the assessee on acquisition of technical know-how is not capital expenditure ?'2. We have heard learned standing counsel. We are unable to accept his connection that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is of capital nature. In our opinion, the principle is well-settled by a number of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this court. 3. The assessee-company is engaged in the manufacture of locomotives used in mines and industries for haulage of coal and other materials. The company has been carrying on business for quite some time. In connection with the manufacture of locomotives, the assessee-company entered into an agreement with M/s. Ventra Engineering Consultants...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jetha Lal Nanji and Bros.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1986
Reported in: [1987]167ITR191(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Two questions are referred for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the property did not belong to the firm 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the partners has got undefined interest in the property of the firm and as such the income from the property has to be assessed in the hands of the partner ?' 2. We may first state the facts relevant to the above questions. The partnership firm called Messrs. Jethalal Nanji and Brothers, New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad, consisted of seven partners. Their shares in the partnership were not in equal proportions. The partnership firm owned a plot No. 4 in Bhoiguda, Secunderabad. The partnership firm obtained permission for constructing a building comprising of seven flats in the said plot. The permission for construction was obtained in th...
Tag this Judgment!Alkali Metals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1986
Reported in: [1987]169ITR359(AP)
Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J. 1. Pursuant to the directions of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in placing a restriction on the interpretation of the expression 'promoters (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no evidence to support the fact that M/s. Y. S. R. Krishna Rao, A. L. Narasimha Rao and Y. Joga Rao also rendered service to the assessee-company ?' 2. The income-tax assessments involved are for the years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. The assessee is a private limited company. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation has given assistance to the assessee in the manufacture of sodium metal by subscribing to 50% of the equity capital. Initially, the promoters of the assessee-company were : (1) Y. V. S. S. Murthy, (2) Smt. Y. Annapurnamma, (3) Smt. Y. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anasuya Devi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1986
Reported in: [1987]168ITR587(AP)
Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J.1. This application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax seeking to raise the following five questions of law : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the property ceased to be a capital asset at the time when it became the property of the firm 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion drawn by the Appellate Tribunal that the property ceased to be capital asset and became the stock-in-trade of the co-owners is supported by any relevant and valid material and whether such conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal is not perverse 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in stating that the excess contribution over and above Rs. 6,00,000 in terms of value allowed to be withdrawn does not in any way...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Durgamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1986
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(AP)304; [1987]166ITR776(AP)
Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J. 1. Under directions from this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question of law for the consideration of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in canceling the assessments for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1967-68 which were made by the Income-tax Officer to give effect to the earlier finding of the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 and 1964-65 to 1967-68, respectively?' 2. This case has a chequered history. Disputes which arose in 1947 between members of a joint family were the subject-matter of consideration in several courts and the matter eventually went right up to the Supreme Court. The question which basically fell for consideration was whether the business carried on in the plying of motor buses by ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sadatullah and ors. Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-1986
Reported in: [1990]182ITR369(AP)
K. Bhaskaran, C.J.1. This writ petition is for quashing the notice dated June 24, 1986, issued by the respondent, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty B-Ward, Hyderabad, purported to have been issued under section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, (34 of 1953). In its material portion, the notice reads as follows : 'Whereas I have reason to believe that property chargeable to estate duty has (a) escaped assessment, and (b) been underassessed. You are requested to deliver to me not later than July 24, 1986, an account of all property in respect of which estate duty is payable. ' 2. We are told that objections to the notice had already been filed by the petitioner before the respondent and that no orders thereafter had been passed by the respondent pursuant to the notice. The apprehension expressed by counsel for the petitioners is that the notice having been issued in spite of the provisions contained in section 36 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the respondent might pass an assessment...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »