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.
Gwalior Palace Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1987
Reported in: [1988]170ITR479(AP)
Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act' for short). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question for consideration of this court in connection with the income-tax assessment year 1976-77 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty imposed under section 273(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of Rs.1,520 for the assessment year 1976-77 ?' 2. It is not in dispute that for the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee did not file an estimate of advance tax payable. Consequently, the assessee was called upon to show cause why penalty should not be levied. No reply to the show-cause notice was furnished to the Income-tax Officer. Consequently, penalty of Rs.1,520 was levied under section 273(b) of the Act. The assessee appealed against the levy of penalty to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) unsuccessfully. ...
Kanamarlapudi Subba Rao Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1987
Reported in: [1988]173ITR265(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The question referred to us under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inclusion of the partnership share value of Rs. 2,52,725 in the net wealth of the assessee-family under section 4(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act or under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act is correct in law ?' 2. The assessee admitted a sum of Rs. 2,52,725 in Part IV of his wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1978-79 and claimed before the Wealth-tax Officer that the said sum represents his partnership interest in the firm, M/s. K. Narayana Setty & Son, Nellore. His contention was that the said partnership interest cannot be included in the hands of the assessee. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family of which the karta is K. Subba Rao. His contention was that since he was a partner of the said partnership firm in his individual capacity, the value of his share in the partnership firm cannot be treated as the wealth of...
Safari Wines Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-22-1987
Reported in: (1988)69CTR(AP)1; [1987]169ITR695(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. TWO questions are referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. The questions are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the firm is not genuine because no consent letters were filed from the guardian of the minors nor was any supplementary deed or codicil filed before the Income-tax Officer 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in confirming the refusal of registration by the Income-tax Officer relying on the ratio of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Uttam Kumar Pramod Kumar as reported in : [1978]115ITR796(All) ?' 2. The assessment year concerned herein is 1975-76. A partnership deed was executed on July 29, 1974, with effect from May 1, 1974, according to which there were three major partners, viz., R. Gopal, V. Chandrasen Rao and R. Eswaraiah. Two minors, viz., Baby...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Andhra Pradesh Bankers and Pawnbrokers ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(AP)207; [1988]170ITR476(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. The two questions referred for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was engaged in the relevant previous year in pursuit of objects or advancement of public utility not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that for the assessment year under consideration, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 11(1) read with section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' The assessee, A. P. Bankers and Pawn Brokers Association, Secunderabad, was registered as a company under the Companies Act, 1956. It was accorded a licence under section 25 of the said Act, read with the first proviso to section 3 of the A.P. Non-Trading Companies Ac...
Mopeds India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1987
Reported in: [1988]172ITR555(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The following two questions are referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the sums of Rs. 55,897, Rs. 1,47,787 and Rs. 1,82,620 represented the capital expenditure for acquisition of plant and machinery 2. Whether, in view of the fact and the cost of plant and machinery having already been fixed and commissioned to business, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the payments of Rs. 55,897, Rs. 1,47,787 and Rs. 1,82,620 from part of the plant and machinery whose acquisition was completed long prior to the 'previous year' for the assessment year 1974-75 ?' 2. The assessment years concerned herein are 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. Identical questions were referred to this court for the assessment year 1973-74 in R.C. No. 13 of 1979 (see : [1988]172ITR552(AP) ). A Bench of this court consisting of Raghuvir J. and Ramanu...
Nadimane Hotel (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-21-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC80(AP)
Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J.1. The petitioner, a private limited company, 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 Andhra Pradesh 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 third respondent in Assessment No. 2068/82-83, dated 31st December, 1986. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J. Eswara Prasad, and the learned Government Pleader. 3. For the purpose of disposing of this writ petition it is not necessary to set down the disputes between the hoteliers and the Sales Tax Department with respect to the payment of sales tax on what have come to be popularly called 'parcel restaurant sales'. The Commercial Tax Department claimed that sales tax was liable to be paid on all such sales effected in the hotels while th...
S.V.K.B.A. Lakshma Rao and anr. Vs. Competent Authority, Ulc Cum Milit ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-20-1987
Reported in: AIR1988AP254
ORDER1. The petitioner is admittedly now found to be holding vacant land in excess of the prescribed limit under the Urban lands (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (33 of 1976), for short, 'the Act', but he claims that as it is situated in Secunderabad Cantonment Area, it stands vested in the Military administration and therefore by operation of S. 19(1)(ii) of the Act, the land shall stand excluded from the purview of the Act. Therefore, the declaration that it is excess land is (not) valid in law. In support of the contention, Sri Radhakrishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to contend that the word 'to hold' as defined under S. 2(1) of the Act means, to own such land or to possess such land as owner or as tenant or as mortgagee or under an irrevocable power of attorney or under a hire-purchase agreement or partly in one of the said capacities and partly in any other of the said capacity or capacities. In this case, the lease is granted by the Cantonment authorities for the petit...
Ashok Biscuit Works and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR300(AP)
Radhakrishna Rao, J. 1. The 1st petitioner is a registered firm carrying on manufacture on manufacture of biscuits in the name and style of 'M/S. Ashok Biscuit Works'. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 are partners. The petitioner firm filed returns for the years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. On January 20, 1979, the Income-tax officer issued a letter to the 1st petitioner-firm pointing out that the sales aggregating to Rs. 2,29,249 properly accountable as sales for the previous year ending March 31, 1976, have not been accounted for under 'sales'. The 1st petitioner-firm was requested to offer its objections, if any, for treating the sum of Rs. 2,29,249 as its concealed income for the assessment year 1976-77. The 1st petitioner-firm was requested to file its reply by January 27, 1979. On February 7, 1979, the 1st petitioner-firm filed a revised return of income disclosing a total income ofRs. 2,88,434.62 along with a letter stating that the reasons for filing the revised return and the reply to...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Three Aces
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1987
Reported in: [1989]176ITR160(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Three identical questions are referred in these references. The assessee is common. The questions referred are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no legal impediment to a major entering into a contractual relationship with others, respectively, from a point of time when he or she was a minor (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the partnership agreement dated January 4, 1972, did not, in any case, have the effect of making Shashi Rani liable for losses occurring or arising during her minority, though the partnership was stipulated to commence from a point of time when she was a minor (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the partnership was not opposed to any of the provisions of the Excise Act or the rules thereunder and was not vi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vinod Bhargava
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1987
Reported in: [1987]169ITR549(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The assessee in both these R. Cs. is the same. 2. The two questions referred in these R. Cs., respectively are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to development rebat and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to treat the income from lease as income from business and modify the assessment accordingl ?' In effect, the issue arising for decision is the same, namely, whether the lease income in the hands of the assessee was business income and, if so, whether he is entitled to development rebate under section 33(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. 3. The assessee is an individual. He was carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling optical lenses, prisms, etc. During the relevant accounting year, he leased out the entire plant and machinery to a private li...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »