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. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-1988
Reported in: (1988)71CTR(AP)22; [1988]172ITR762(AP)
Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J. 1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in connection with the income-tax assessment year 1976-77. The reference is made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The question referred for the consideration of this court is set out in para. 4 of the statement of the case and may be extracted below for ready reference : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is rights in law in allowing the assessee's appeal holding that the assessee is entitled to the entire amount of Rs. 2,59,451 being the initial contribution made to an approved superannuation fund as a deduction as against Rs. 41,512 allowed by the Income-tax Officer ?' 2. The assessee is a public company. For the income-tax assessment year 1976-77, its previous year ended on December 31, 1975. In the previous year ended on December 31, 1975. In the pre...
U Foam Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-1988
Reported in: 1989(20)ECC133; 1988(36)ELT551(AP); [1989]175ITR326(AP)
Ramanujulu Naidu, J.1. This reference is made by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench, Madras, under section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Salt Act'). The reference is made at the instant of 'U-Foam Private Limited, Hyderabad' (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') and the respondent is the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad. The question referred for the consideration of this court is : 'In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether rule 11 of the Central Excises Rules, 1944, as it existed prior to the introduction of section 11B in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, would apply, or the provision of section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act would apply or neither would apply ?' 2. We may state the relevant facts. The assessee imports raw materials, processes the same and manufacturers polyurethane foam which is classified under tariff item No. 15A(3) of the central excis...
U. Foam Private Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector, Central Excise
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-22-1988
Reported in: 1998(36)ELT537(AP)
Ramanujulu Naidu, J.1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 23.2.1988 seeking a declaration that the duty collected during the period 21.8.1971 and 28.2.1978 is exempt under Notification Nos. 69/71, 107/73 and 108/73. The petitioner consequently seeks a direction for the refund of the duty collected with interest at 12% on the said duty. The subject-matter of this writ petition is also the subject-matter of R.C. 36/84 pursuant to a reference made by Excise, Custom and Gold Control Tribunal under S. 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner in order to meet an objection raised during the course of appeal before the Tribunal and also in the arguments before this Court in R.C. No. 36/84 that without invoking the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not open to the petitioner to claim refund for any period except under rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal held that the application of the...
The Andhra Pradesh Rice Bran Solvent Extractors Association and ors. V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1989AP284; 1992(39)ECC149; 1988(19)LC452(AP); 1988(37)ELT198(AP)
P.A. Choudary, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ petition is the Andhra Pradesh Rice Bran Solvent Extractors Association. It challenges the validity of imposition of cess by the Union of India under Section 3 of the Vegetable Oils Cess Act (Act 30 of 1983) on the bran oil produced by its members out of the rice bran by the method of solvent extraction. The members of the petitioner-association own rice bran solvent extraction mills. They manufacture rice bran oil out of the rice bran through the process of solvent extraction. Rice bran is itself extracted fromrice which is produced from paddy by removing the husk. Of course paddy is produced from a plant.2. The Union Parliament in exercise ofits powers under entry 52, List I of the VIISchedule enacted the National Oilseeds andVegetable Oils Development Board Act (Act29 of 1983). The object of the enactment is toprovide for the development of the oilseedsindustry and the oils industry. In order toreach those goals the Act, authorised th...
Ghantasala Seshamma and Others Vs. Gollapalli Rajaratnam and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1988
Reported in: AIR1990AP19
ORDERJayachandra Reddy, J.1. A very important question is again canvassed before us in this L.P.A, before admission. The question is: Whether a Letters Patent Appeallay to a Division Bench against an appellate order of a single Judge in an appeal under Order 43, Rule l, C.P.C. read with Section 104(1). CPC and whether Sec. 104(2), CPC was a bar to the maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent?2. In Amruthappa v. Abdul Rasool, : AIR1988AP215 , Jagannadha Rao, J. considered this question and he referred the judgments of various High Courts including the Bombay and Allahabad High Courts. One very important decision referred to by the learned Judge is Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben, AIR 1981 SC 1786. The matter was argued before the learned Judge by a senior counsel and looks as though it is argued thoroughly and the learned Judge, after considering all the decisions and particularly relying on the ratio laid down in the Shah Babulal Khimji's case (su...
Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: (1988)74CTR(AP)1; [1988]174ITR689(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Two questions are referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. They are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction in the computation of total income of the expenditure of Rs. 20,82,994 incurred for raising additional capital by issue of ordinary shares (2) 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, 1964, as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act or alternatively as expenditure incidental to the carrying on of the business deductible under section 28 of the Income-tax Act while computing the income under the head 'Business' ?' 2. So far as question No. (2) is concerned, it is conceded by learned counsel for the assessee that this question has to be answered in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in fa...
Vijayalakshmi and Co. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: [1992]84STC351(AP)
Jagannadha Rao, J. 1. These three tax revision cases preferred by the assessee are connected and can be disposed of together. 2. T.R.C. No. 343 of 1985 relates to the assessment year 1973-74 and is preferred against the order in T.A. No. 431 of 1981 on the file of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Appeals), Guntur, in Appeal No. 117/80-81 dated April 24, 1981, which in its turn confirmed the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Tanuku, in Assessment No. 3623/73-74 dated March 15, 1979. The order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer was indeed an order of reassessment made subsequent to a search and seizure operation. The earlier assessment dated December 20, 1977, for 1973-74 was set aside and the reassessment made. The Tribunal, while disposing of T.A. No. 431 of 1981, partly allowed the assessee's appeal in relation to a turnover of Rs. 29,109.70 but dismissed the appeal in respect of t...
Desai Brothers Vs. Laxmi Bai Peddamalla and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ994AP
Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. The point that arises in these appeals is can a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, while entertaining an application under Section 33C(2) go into the question whether the petitioner is a workman or not. The Labour Court held that the petitioners, who have filed objections under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are workmen even if the objection raised by the Management is taken to be true. Questioning the same, the Management has filed several writ petitions and the learned Single Judge affirmed the view taken by the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge has also held that the Beedi Manufacturers ultimately paid wages to the workmen through the agency of Thakedar and in that factual situation the workmen should be regarded as the workmen of the Beedi Manufacturers. It is that finding that is seriously challenged in these writ appeals by the Management.2. For a proper appreciation of the point urged, we may state few more facts. The respondents ...
Chairman, Governing Body, S.M.V.M. Polytechnic, Tanuku Vs. Government ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-14-1988
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR195]; (1989)IILLJ95AP; (1989)IILLJ95SC
1. This writ petition raises a short but an interesting question as to the eligibility of a college teacher to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('the Act' for short). 2. Respondent No. 5 was a Physical Director in M.V. Memorial Polytechnic at Tanuku and retired from service on 30th September 1984. There is no dispute that he was a member of the teaching staff while he was in service. At the time of retirement he was drawing a salary of Rs. 1640/-. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner-institution has no gratuity scheme under which gratuity is paid to its employees irrespective of the application of the Act. 3. Having retired from service, respondent No. 5 kept quit without laying any claim for payment of gratuity. However, on 15th March 1986 he addressed a letter to the petitioner management claiming payment of gratuity under the Act. On 18th August 1986 the petitioner-management sent a reply stating that it has no gratuity scheme and, therefore, no gratuity was...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Rebala Subbarami Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-13-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR187(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Three question are referred for the opinion of this court under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. They are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the debts due to Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy and Sri T. Prabhas Kumar Reddy are not to be abated under section 46(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the repayments of debts made by the deceased to Smt. T. Sudarsanamma and Smt. T. Priyamvada within the period of two years preceding the date of death cannot be included in the estate of the deceased under section 46(2) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Controller deleting the addition of Rs. 1,88,084 made by the Assistant Controller ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »