Andhra Pradesh Court December 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.
Hyderabad Co-operative Central Trading Society Ltd. Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-29-1987
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(AP)260; [1988]173ITR690(AP)
Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J.1. This reference arises under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and relates to the income-tax assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. At the instance of the assessee the 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 Tribunal was correct in law in holding that where deduction has to be allowed in terms of the proviso to section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of municipal taxes, only such amounts for which demand is made for the first time in the accounting period could be allowed as a deduction ?' 2. For the income-tax assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 15,794 and Rs. 15,290, respectively, by way of municipal taxes payable in respect of properties owned by it. The deduction was claimed under the proviso to section 23(1) of the Act. The tax authorities scrutinised the claim and found that Rs. 4,866 and Rs. 7,400 are allowable for ...
Bharat Heavy Plates and Vessels Ltd. Vs. Sreeramachandra Murthy and an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-28-1987
Reported in: (1988)IILLJ22AP
P.A. Choudary, J.1. This Writ Appeal is filed against a judgment of a learned brother of ours allowing a Writ Petition filed by an employee of the Bharat Heavy Plates and Vessels Ltd. 2. The first respondent to this Writ Appeal was a workman employed by the Bharat Heavy Plates and Vessels Ltd., Visakhapatnam. While young the workman first joined the services of the company on 21st April 1972 as a semiskilled workman, he was promoted subsequently as a machinist. Within three years his luck had run out. While working as a machinist, he was charged for adultery and was convicted in C.C. No. 202 of 1975 on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Visakhapatnam under Section 497 IPC and was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in Crl. Appeal No. 231 of 1976 maintained the conviction but suspended the sentence. Instead of sending the young workman to jail the appellate court enlarged the workman on libert...
Shanker Vilas Vs. Commercial Tax Officer-iii, Guntur
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-28-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC16(AP)
Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J.1. The petitioner seeks a declaration that clause (b) of Notification II appended to G.O.Ms. No. 1025, Revenue Department, dated 22nd August, 1986 is ultra vires of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and Act 18 of 1985 and section 6 of the Constitution (46th Amendment) Act, 1982 and to strike down the same. The petitioner also seeks the quashing of the order of the Commercial Tax Officer-III, Guntur, respondent No. 1 herein, bearing No. 1409/86-A4 dated 27th October, 1986. 2. An identical question arose for consideration in Writ Petition No. 3242 of 1987 [Nadimane Hotel (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh before a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Anjaneyulu, J.) was a party. The matter has been dealt with at length in that case. We do not, therefore, consider it necessary to cover the issues under consideration once again. 3. The petitioner's contention is that in view of the Commercial Tax Department asserting its claim for payment of sales...
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Godavari Plywoods Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-28-1987
Reported in: [1991]83STC289(AP)
A. Lakshmana Rao, J. 1. All these tax revision cases filed by the State arise out of the common order dated April 22, 1983, of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, allowing the appeals preferred by M/s. Godavari Plywoods Ltd., the respondent in all these cases. 2. The respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, on October 11, 1973. It was granted permission to set up an industrial unit near Rampachodavaram village, East Godavari district, which is a scheduled area notified by the President of India under sub-para (1) of paragraph 6 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India, for the manufacture of commercial and decorative plywood. It purchased indigenous machinery worth Rs. 5,25,891.30 during the year 1976 and erected a pilot plant. During the year 1977-78 it imported machinery worth Rs. 70,43,113.60 and also purchased indigenous machinery worth Rs. 17,42,379.34 and installed it. The Electricity Board had given high tension elect...
P. Galemma and ors. Vs. Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-24-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ791AP
ORDERJeevan Reddy, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the legality and validity of the order passed by the Controlling Authority (under Section 3 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) dated 30.12.1981 confirmed in the Appellate order dated 10.11.1982 passed by the 1st respondent (the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act) is questioned. The 3rd respondent, Chegu Krishnamurthy & Company, Guntur, was engaged in tobacco business at Guntur. It appears that, in the cyclone which occurred in the year 1977, the 3rd respondent's property and stocks were damaged. Its business seriously affected and it almost came to a stop in the year 1977. The writ petitioners are the workers engaged by the 3rd respondent. Since the provident fund, gratuity and other terminal benefits were not paid to them, they filed applications (marked Exs.P-2 to P-9 and P-11 to P-33) before the 2nd respondent for refund of the provident fund. They were paid the provident fund due to them in 1979. In this Writ Peti...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maddi Venkataratnam and Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-14-1987
Reported in: [1989]175ITR61(AP)
Anjaneyulu, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, made this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The reference relates to the income-tax assessment year 1974-75. The following question of law is referred for the consideration of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 11,98,787, received by the assessee on the sale of import entitlements represented only a capital receipt ?' 2. The assessee is a company. For the income-tax assessment year 1974-75, its previous year ended on October 31, 1973. The assessee carries on the business in processing and sale of Virginia tobacco and also in ginning cotton and sale of lint and seeds. It also deeds in pesticides. The assessee-company also exports tobacco to outside countries on a large scale. In its assessment for the year 1973-74, the Income-tax Officer inclu...
Yeshwanth Sankar Chawan and ors. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-1987
Reported in: 1988(33)ELT291(AP)
ORDER1. Generally the Court should not impose onerous conditions. When the Sessions Judge has imposed onerous conditions, the High Court must take into consideration in what circumstances it has been done. Smuggling has become the order of the day. The accused are carriers. If they are released, there is possibility of their reviving their trade again. I do not know what made the Special Judge, Economic Offences, to grant bail. In a case like this the Court must think twice before granting bail. The petitioners are residents of Bombay. If the security that has been ordered is for a lessor amount, there is every apprehension that the petitioners would be tempted to jump the bail in the event of their release. The imposition of cash security by the learned Special Judge under the special circumstances directed by him is just and correct. The revision for relaxing the conditions imposed by the Court or for modifying the conditions, cannot be entertained. The proper course is to file an ap...
Rayalaseema Grameena Bank Vs. Bandela Yohan and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-1987
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas695(AP)
1. Since in the present case,as held the suit is filed within three years from the date of default, viz., March 31, 1983, it is not barred by limitation. Accordingly, the order under revision rejecting the plaint under Order 7, rule 11, civil Procedure Code, is set a side and the lower court is directed to entertain the suit, if it is otherwise in order as per law. The revision petition is allowed. No costs....
K.A. Choudary Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-1987
Reported in: [1990]183ITR29(AP)
Upendralal Waghray, J.1. The petitioner who is a development officer employed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India received a sum of Rs. 9,536 from his employer by way of incentive bonus during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1981-82. In his return filed under the Income-tax Act, he claimed a deduction of Rs. 4,768 by way of expenses earning the said incentive bonus. The Income-tax Officer declined to give the deduction claimed on the ground that the incentive bonus was a part of the salary for which standard deduction was allowed. This order was confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the Commissioner in revision. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction that the incentive bonus shall not be included as a part of his salary during the said and the subsequent assessments. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the incentive bonus does not form part of the salary and has to be treated as income from profession for e...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. A.V. Reddy Trust and ors. (for Margaret ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-08-1987
Reported in: [1989]180ITR263(AP)
Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J. 1. All the four references under section 27(1) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957, are at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. An identical question of law is referred to this court in all the four references. The facts in all the four cases are also identical. It will, therefore, be convenient to dispose of all the four references together by a common judgment. 2. One Sri A. V. Reddy of Kadiam in East Godavari District (hereinafter referred to as 'the settlor') created four trusts for the benefit of his three grandchildren and a daughter. One trust was created for the benefit of his grandson, Dexter Anand Sear (eldest son of his daughter, Margaret). The relevant trust deed was executed on March 14, 1972, and is the subject-matter of consideration in R.C. No. 37 of 1983. The name of the trust is misdescribed by the tax authorities as well as the Tribunal. It is referred to as 'Sri A. V. Reddy Trust for Mrs. Margaret Anne Reddy', whereas the trust deed would indicate...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »