Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Gattupalli
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR69(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The following question has been referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was in law in holding that the Department was not correct in assessing the income derived from the business carried on in the name of M/s. A. Gattupalli in the status of 'body of individuals' ?' One Mr. Gattupalli was carrying on tobacco business. He exported tobacco to foreign countries, in consideration whereof some import entitlements were granted to him. Sri Gattupalli died on August 31, 1971. He left behind a will under which he bequeathed all his movable and immovable properties to his wife and four minor sons to be enjoyed by them equally. Till his death he was being assessed in the status of an individual. Soon after his death, i.e., in the next month, a deed of partition was executed, whereunder the widow divided all the movable and immovable properties left by her dece...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.S. Murthy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1987
Reported in: (1988)69CTR(AP)26; [1987]169ITR686(AP)
Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J. 1. This reference arising under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), at the instance of the commissioner of Income-tax raises a short but interesting question. The matter relates to the income-tax assessment year 1976-77 and the question referred for the consideration of this court is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to relief under section 91 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of the entire tax deducted at source by the Government of Ira ?' We shall notice the relevant facts. 2. The assessee was employed as a dental surgeon in the Osmania Dental College, Hyderabad. He went on deputation to Iran. In the previous year relevant to the income-tax assessment year 1976-77, the assessee received salary of Rs. 64,470 from the Government of Iran wherefrom tax of Rs. 5,974 was deducted under the law in force in that country. The ...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Sultan Ali
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1987
Reported in: [1988]174ITR249(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. The question referred for our opinion under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty under section 18(1)(a) should be computed after deducting the total wealth assessed under section 16 from the total wealth assessed under section 17 of the Act ?' 2. The relevant facts are that for the assessment year 1967-68, the assessment was completed on March 28, 1968. The assessment was made under section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act. No proceedings for levy of penalty under section 18 were initiated on this occasion. Subsequently, a notice under section 17 was issued and served upon the assessee on May 3, 1972. (Section 17 of the Act provides for bringing to tax the escaped wealth.) 35 days time was granted under this notice for filing a revised return. The assessee, however, did not file any such return within the said period or thereafter. Acco...
Balabhadra Seetharatanam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1987
Reported in: [1988]169ITR276(AP)
Upendralal Waghray, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act at the instance of the assessee and the following question is referred for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest income of Rs. 3,418 accrued on the capital account of the minor, Sri B. Srinivasa Rao, is includible in the hands of the assessee under section 64(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' The assessment year in question is 1976-77 during which the minor son of the assessee was admitted to the benefits of a partnership firm. The controversy is whether the interest income of Rs. 3,418 on the capital of the minor is liable to be included in the taxable income of the assessee under the provisions of section 64(1)(iii) as it stood then, which, so far as it is relevant reads as follows : '64. Income of individual to include income of spouse, minor child, etc. - (1) In computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bolla Ramaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1987
Reported in: [1988]174ITR154(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. Identical questions are referred in these three cases. Though the assessees are different, the basic facts are identical. It would be enough if we set out the questions referred in R.C. No. 16 of 1982. The questions are : '(1) Whether the acquisition of lands under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, was completed before March 1, 1970 (2) Whether the lands were agricultural lands on the date of acquisition (3) Whether the benefit under section 54B of the Income-tax Act, was allowable in computing the capital gains in the event the acquisition was completed on March 12, 1970 ?' 2. The lands of the assessees in R.C. Nos. 16 of 1982 and 18 of 1982 are situated in Hakimpet village, which is included within the municipal limits of Hyderabad City. The lands of the assessee in R.C. No. 11 of 1982 are situated in Guddimalkapur village, which is situated within 8 kilometres of the local limits of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. These la...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Nathumal Ramchand
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1987
Reported in: [1988]174ITR174(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. The only question referred in this case under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the share of goodwill of the deceased in the firm of Messrs. Nathumal Brothers did not pass on the death of the deceased under section 5 of the Estate Duty Act ?' 2. On the question at issue there was a conflict of opinion between the Gujarat High Court and the Madras High Court. The Gujarat High Court took the view in Mrudula Nareshchandra v. CED : [1975]100ITR297(Guj) , that the goodwill does not pass on the death of a partner where the partnership deed provides that the partnership shall not be dissolved on such death and that the heirs of the deceased partner shall have no right what soever to claim any share in the goodwill of the firm. A contrary view was taken by the Madras High Court in CED v. Ibrahim Gulam Hussain Currimbhoy : [1975]100ITR320(Mad) . The T...
K. Naga Raja and ors. Vs. the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Depa ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1987
Reported in: AIR1987AP230
K. Bhaskaran, C.J.1. It is convenient to dispose of all these writ petitions (28 in number) by a common judgment as there arises a common point, and that is the only point for decision, in all of them; and that point is whether a Writ of Mandamus would issue from this Court to the respective respondents to consider the applications for appointment in respect of the petitioners without insisting on their being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, as according to them, the provisions of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 did not prohibit the consideration of such applications received direct from the candidate. Their contention is that under the said Act, once the employer makes the requisition to the concerned Employment Exchange, his liability ceases and the employer is not precluded from considering the applications received from the candidate direct. The petitioners placed reliance on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Sanka...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B. Kishanlal Khandasari Sugar Mills
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-1987
Reported in: [1988]170ITR629(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. Two questions are referred for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. They are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the attention of the Tribunal was drawn to the order pronounced by the Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the partners of the assessee-firm in respect of the same charge for which the penalty in question was levied prior to the actual passing of the order by the Tribunal, the Tribunal was justified in refusing proper opportunity to the assessee to produce the said judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge in support of its stand that there is no justification for levy of penalty and in refusing to reopen and rehear the appeal 2. If question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,39,261 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The asses...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: [1987]169ITR555(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The only question referred in this case relates to the computation of the capital base of the assessee-company under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The question referred is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the excess provision made for depreciation was a reserve forming part of the capital for the purpose of surta ?' 2. The assessee is Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company, a public limited company, engaged in manufacturing cigarettes and other tobacco products. 3. The Second Schedule to the Act provides rules for computing the capital of a company for the purpose of surtax. Rule 1, in so far as it is relevant, reads as follows : '1. Subject to the other provisions contained in this Schedule, the capital of a company shall be the aggregate of the amounts, as on the first day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year, of - (i) its paid-up share capital; (i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Limited
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: [1988]169ITR139(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Three questions are referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. They are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee-company for the purpose of creating the trust necessarily as a welfare measure has to be allowed as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing that the amount of Rs. 1,65,000 be allowed as a deduction from the total income as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business carried on by the assessee 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that depreciation should be allowed on the expenditure on bore wells and on payment of sales tax on a filtration plant ?' Questions Nos. 1 and 2 go together and may be considered ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »