Andhra Pradesh Court April 1988 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. Sri Krishna Bottlers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)71CTR(AP)88; [1989]175ITR154(AP)
Jagannadha Rao, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the reference reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the bottles and shells constitute 'plant' and depreciation is admissible thereon under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1976-77 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company manufacturing soft drinks and selling the same at Hyderabad and other places. The first assessment of the company was made for the assessment year 196-768. From the assessment year 1967-68 up to and inclusive of the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee-company was claiming breakages in bottles in the respective years as a deduction. For the assessment year 1976-77 (year ending June 30, 1975), the assessee-company has claimed deduction under the first proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of the bottles and shells purchased and put to use during the year. The assessee had claim...
Bollabha Artho Thyadi and ors. Vs. Grandhi Kamaraju
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1989AP220
Amareswari, J.1. Those two revision petitions arising out of rent control proceedings are preferred by the tenants occupying two different portions or a building located in Visakhapatnam town. The respondent-landlord filed H.R.C. Nos. 33, 34 and 35/68 against the tenants occupying three different portions of the house bearing No. 26-15-180 on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement of the landlord for personal occupation for doing business. The learned Rent Controller negatived both the grounds and dismissed the eviction petitions. The Lower Appellate Court, however, allowed the appeals and ordered eviction. In one of the three cases, the tenant has not preferred a revision while the tenants occupying two portions have preferred these two revision petitions.2. When those revision petitions came up before our learned Brother Jagannadha Rao, J., he referred the matter to a Division Bench expressing the view that the decision of P. Rama Rao, J. in Arjund...
P. Narasaiah Vs. P. Rajoo Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1989AP264
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is placed before me on a difference of opinion arising between two learned Judges of this Court. The question upon which difference of opinion has arisen is : whether a judgment-debtor, who does not get the payment made by him outside the Court recorded and certified under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 off Order XXI, C.P.C., can be permitted to pleadsuch payment, after the expiry of period of 30 days prescribed by Article 125 of the Limitation Act, in the execution proceedings taken by the decree-holder? Amareswari, J. has held that by virtue of Section 47, C.P.C., thejudgment-debtor is entitled to raise such aplea, while Upendralal Waghray, J. has held to the contrary. I will first state the relevant facts. 2. The respondent (decree-holder) obtained a decree for money on 26-7-1978. In the year 1979 he filed E.P. No. 20/1979 wherein the judgment-debtor filed a petition, E.A. No. 184/1980, on 20-8-1980, pleading that he has paid the entire decre...
Bank of India Vs. Vijaya Transport and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-27-1988
Reported in: [1991]70CompCas855(AP)
Seetharama Reddy, J.1. By a common order, these three revision petitions could he disposed of, as they are inter-related involving a common point.2. These three revision petitions arise under the following circumstances : Bank of India who is the revisionist in all the three revision petitions filed the suit, O. S. No. 12 of 1975, against Vijay Transport, Madras and others, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,14,817.97 on the file of the Sub-Court, Eluru. Vijay Transport (defendant No. 1), Sunkavalli Rajalakshmi (defendant No. 3), Sunkavalli Venkatakrishna Parvatalu (defendant No. 4) and Sunkavalli Annapurnamma (defendant No. 14) put in a counter-claim. The Sub-Court, Eluru, decreed both the suits as well as the counter-claim. The petitioner, Bank of India, preferred an appeal to this court in A. S. No. 858 of 1976 against the said decrees. In appeal, stay was granted on condition of deposit of a sum of Rs. 16 lakhs by the petitioner-bank which was in turn enabled to be withdrawn by the re...
Koduru Bhaskara Rao and Kuntamalla Buchi Rayudu Vs. Commercial Tax Off ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-1988
Reported in: [1989]75STC370(AP)
P.A. Choudary, J.1. These two writ petition raise questions about the meaning and scope of section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939. Under section 4 of that Act, entertainment tax is leviable on the gross collection of every show held in the theatres specified in column (2) of the table appended to that section and located in the local area specified in the corresponding entry in column (1) of the table. Under section 5, the option is given to the theatre owners to pay tax in lieu of tax payable under the aforesaid section 4. The tax so payable is specified in the table given to section 5. Section 5 says : 'In lieu of the tax payable under section 4, in the case of the entertainments held in the theatres specified in column (2) of the table below and located in the local areas specified in the corresponding entry in column (1) of the said table, the proprietor thereof may, at his option and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, pay the amount of tax to th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.B. Lohada
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1988
Reported in: [1988]174ITR318(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, has referred the following five questions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. They are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs received by the assessee could not be considered as a revenue receipt (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 28(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are not applicable to the facts of the case (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs could not be brought to tax for the assessment year 1971-72 (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 55,000 received by way of interest was not taxable for the assessment year 1971-72 (5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of interest of Rs. 55,000 received on February 23, 197...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagatram Ahuja
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(AP)112; [1988]172ITR632(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, has referred the following question under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the release by the assessee, who was one of the partners in the firm of 3-Aces, of his rights in the assets of the firm for a consideration of Rs. 3,00,000 when the market value of the assets of the firm in proportion to his share was in excess thereof, did not amount to a gift within the meaning of the Gift-tax Act ?' 2. The assessment year concerned in 1972-73. The original assessment under the Gift-tax Act was made on October 12, 1972, on a total gift of Rs. 70,000, but thereafter it was reopened under section 26(1) of the Act. 3. A partnership firm under the name and style '3-Aces' was constituted on January 9, 1965, by two brothers, Jagatram Ahuja ('the assessee' herein) and Bishanlal Ahuja. The firm ...
Jadhavjee Laljee Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-25-1988
Reported in: [1989]74STC201(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. This tax revision case involves the interpretation of the words 'or, as the case may be, could have obtained' occurring in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act. We shall first state the facts which give rise to the said question. 2. The petitioner Jadhavjee Laljee is a registered dealer in Andhra Pradesh. He purchased a consignment of horse-gram (kulthi) from a Maharashtra dealer. He purchased the same while the goods were in inter-State movement, by obtaining an endorsement on the concerned railway receipts. In turn, he sold it to another dealer in Andhra Pradesh. Horse-gram is wholly exempt from sales tax under the Maharashtra Sales Tax Act. The petitioner did not furnish form E-I prescribed by the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, nor did he obtain the C form prescribed by section 8(4)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, from his purchaser. On these facts, the Commercial Tax Officer, Nirmal, included the re...
G. Lakshmi Narayana Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-24-1988
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(AP)160; [1989]175ITR593(AP)
Upendralal Waghray, J. 1. These four writ petitions raise a common question and were heard as a batch. 2. The controversy in all these cases relates to the assessment proceedings under the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1979-80. All the petitioners had filed their respective returns for the said assessment year in which they had claimed that there was a partial partition of the family and had requested for an order under section 171 of the Act also. it is to be noticed that the partial partitions in all these cases are said to have taken place between January 1, 1979, and March 31, 1979, during the relevant previous year for the assessment year 1979-80. In the case of two petitioners, after enquiry, an order under section 171 was also passed and assessment completed, while in the case of two others, the assessment was yet to be completed. However, after coming into fore of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980, the income-tax officer decided to ignore the order passed under section 1...
Suresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Collector, Customs, Madras and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-23-1988
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD514; 1998(3)ALT443; 1998(103)ELT18(AP)
ORDER1. The petitioner was travelling on 14-6-1984 by Madras to Howrah by Coramandal express. The Customs Officers at Visakhapatnam had received reliable information on that day that certain person with prohibited/smuggled zip fasteners were travelling by the said train. At about 9 p.m. at Waltair railway station the customs authorities combed the said train and found few gunny bags and other containers during the course of search in the compartment bearing No.7203of the said train. The petitioner was found sitting alongwith one other person just by the side of the said luggage on a seat. The petitioner was then questioned and the petitioner gave certain information disowning title to the articles in the said packages and contended that the goods were given to him only for the purpose of carrying them from Madras to Bubaneshwar, It was stated that the person who gave these articles was unknown to the petitioner and the petitioner was only required to carry them for certain consideratio...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »