Andhra Pradesh Court October 1987 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.
Guntupalli Rama Subbayya Vs. Guntupalli Rajamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-1987
Reported in: AIR1988AP226
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The short question of significant practical importance that arises in this civil revision petition is whether an order determining any question within See. 47 C.P.C, passed after amendment of definition of 'decree', in proceedings pending on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, is appealable or revisable. A Division Bench of this court- noticing difference of opinion in the decisions of Division Benches ,in Challa Ramamurthy v. P. Adinarayana' Sons, : AIR1985AP42 and Gopu Peddi Reddy v. Gopu Thirupathy Reddy, : AIR1981AP362 referred this civil revision petition to the Full Bench, which is now before us. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in a narrow compass and may be stated thus:The revision petitioner is the husband. He suffered a decree dated 18-2-1972 in O.S. No. 191/71 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur, filed by his wife (the respondent) for recovery of her maintenance On 22-9-1975 the petitioner filed EA N6.81...
Asstt. Collector of C.E. Vs. Baijjala Shivalinga
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-1987
Reported in: 1988(19)LC486(AP); 1988(37)ELT205(AP)
Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise (Preventive). The respondent sole-accused was tried for offences punishable under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act, under Section 85(1) of the Gold Control Act and under Section 27 read with Section 85(1)(ix)(b) of the Gold Control Act.2. The prosecution case is as follows :-The accused is the proprietor of a silverware shop at premises No. 15-6-622, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad and resides at House No. 15-8-452, Feelkhana, Hyderabad. On information that the accused is clandestinely dealing in primary gold, foreign gold and gold ornaments without obtaining a proper licence under the Gold Control Act, in his shop premises and also possessing and concealing primary gold and gold of foreign origin in his residential house, a raid was conducted on 5-5-1982 simultaneously at his shop premises and at his residence. The raid party took two mediators. According to the prosecution at the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-1987
Reported in: [1988]174ITR709(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Tribunal, Hyderabad, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue. : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the leave/retirement gratuity appearing in the balance-sheet should be taken into account for computation of capital for surtax purposes ?' The question arises under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The assessment years concerned are 1966-67 and 1967-68. 2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes and other tobacco products. Under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, the relevant date with reference to which the capital of a company has to be determined is the first day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year - which means that, for the assessment year 1966-67, it is October 1, 1964, and, for the assessment year 1967-68, it...
B. Eswaramma and Etc. Vs. A. Appu Rao and Etc.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-1987
Reported in: AIR1988AP346
Amareswari, J.1. These four revision petitions arise out of proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for short, the Act. The common question involved is whether the eviction petition fails for want of particulars as to the nature of the business which the landlord proposes to commence in the demised premises where eviction is sought under s. 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of the Act. As there is a divergence of judicial opinion, the question is referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Jagannadha Rao, J. That is how the matters are before us now. 2. We will refer to the parties as Landlord and Tenant for the sake of convenience. 3. Mr. O. Adinarayana Reddy and Mr. C.V.N. Sastry, who appeared for the tenants in these cases contended that in a case where the landlord seeks eviction on the ground that he requires the premises for a business which he proposes to commence, it is necessary to state the nature and particulars of the business in t...
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Koduri Satyanarayana and Co.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC233(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. We do not see any substance in this tax revision case, particularly in view of the letter of approval issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals dated 27th January, 1975, regulating the prices of drugs. Item 4 of the said letter is Johnson prickly heat powder. This letter was issued under para 11 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1970. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal is right in considering the Johnson prickly heat powder as falling under entry 37 (drugs) and not under entry 36 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. 2. Tax revision case is dismissed. 3. Petition dismissed. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-26-1987
Reported in: [1988]173ITR290(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. In these two references made under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, seven questions arise for our consideration. They are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the cost of repairs to the buildings taken on lease by the assessee or on the buildings of its own and allotted to its employees could be treated as perquisite for the purpose of section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the buildings owned by the assessee and allowed to be occupied by some highly-paid employees could be treated as the business assets of the assessee for the purpose of section 40A(5) 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred for replacement of crockery used by the employees in the buildings allotted to them could be treated as a separate perquisite for the purpose of computing the disallowance under section 40A(5) 4. Whether, on the facts and in the c...
Barkath Ali Khan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR541(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The following two questions are referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was the owner within the meaning of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the properties sold to outsiders in respect of which full sale consideration was received and possession was handed over but formal deeds of conveyance executed subsequent to the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was liable to be taxed as owner under section 22 of the Income-tax Act in respect of the properties handed over to various Sahebzadas by firmans without executing proper deeds of conveyance ?' 2. The assessment years concerned here are 1975-76 and 1976-77. It is brought to our notice by learned standing counsel for the Revenue - and, in fact, this fact is also found stated in the order of the Tribu...
Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(AP)331; [1989]175ITR55(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Four question are referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court. They are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim as revenue expenditure the sum of Rs. 26,594 paid by way of brokerage on the sale of shares held in Molins of India Ltd. (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim as revenue expenditure the sum of Rs. 4,744 being part of expenditure incurred by Mr. A.M. Lal, chairman of the assessee-company, on account of his visit to foreign countries (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim as revenue expenditure the sum of Rs. 33,000 paid by way of fees to Income Consultants and to Mr. A. C. Das (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of surtax payable under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act...
Bombay Iron Foundry Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1987
Reported in: 1988(17)LC254(AP); 1987(32)ELT360(AP)
Upendralal Waghray,J. 1. The writ Appeal is filed by 27 petitioners against the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 2. The appellants are operating Small Scale Foundries in the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and in Nizamabad district . For the production (manufacture of iron castings, they use old iron scrap and pig iron as raw material. They are all recognised as Small Scale Industries by the State Government authorities and they get their requirements of pig iron from them. The assistant Collector, Central Excise, by his letter/dated 21-8-1981 informed the petitioners that because pig iron is also used as a raw material in the manufacture of iron castings, produced by them they obliged to take L4 licence under the Act, as the product is liable to excise duty under item 25 -shedule I of the Central Excise Act The petitioners have filed writ petition questioning the correctness of the view of the Assistant collector and his jurisdiction contending that the...
Shankarlal Purnimal Vs. Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1987
Reported in: AIR1988AP352
ORDER1. The petitioner is a business partnership. This Writ Petition is filed claiming payment of interest from the respondent State authorities under the Essential Commodities Act. The case of the petitioner is that it has sent a consignment of 320 bags of wheat by Railways to Kachiguda Railway Station and those goods were seized by the authorities under the Essential Commodities Act at Kachiguda for alleged contravention of the Essential Commodities Act and the Rules into which it is not necessary to go in this Writ Petition. All that we should notice is that after the goods were seized, the Collector held an inquiry into the alleged contravention under the Act and the Rules. The Collector held under S. 6-A of the F-C. Act that there was no contravention of the Act or the Rules committed by the petitioner. Accordingly he passed no orders of confiscation of the goods earlier seized by the department. Thus the petitioner was entitled for the return of the goods. But while the proceedin...