Andhra Pradesh Court June 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.
P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. G. Jangaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-1988
Reported in: [1989]179ITR438(AP)
K. Ramaswamy, J. 1. The appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 208 of 1974. The suit is based on an oral contract of sale to convey the suit property for valuable consideration to the appellant. It is his case that G. Jangaiah, the first defendant is the real owner of the property and that Natraj, his minor son, and V. Dayanand, the fourth defendant, the son-in-law, are benamidars for the benefit of the first defendant. He received valuable consideration as earnest money and entered and entered into the contract, but he refused to execute the sale deed despite several legal notices, constraining the appellant to lay the suit for specific performance. The trial court framed issue No. 1. 'Whether the first defendant purchased the plaint schedule property in the names of defendants Nos. 2 and 4 benami for his own benefit ?' and additional issue framed on September 4, 1979 - 'Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to question the sale transaction as benami ?' On a consideratio...
India Leaf Spring Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR639(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the leaf springs manufactured by the assessee-company do not fall within the meaning of the expression 'machinery' in item No. 8 of the Ninth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, i.e., 'industrial and agricultural machinery' ?' 2, The relevant assessment years are 1976-77 and 1977-78. The question in short is whether the machinery of the assessee employed for manufacturing leaf springs can be held to be machinery installed for the purpose of manufacture or production of any one or more of the articles or things specified in items Nos. 1 to 24 in the Ninth Schedule to the Act, in particular in the manufacture or production of '(8) industrial and agricultural machinery' within the meaning of clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Income-tax...
South India Agencies Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-29-1988
Reported in: [1988]71STC437(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. South India Agencies, Hyderabad, the petitioner herein, is a dealer in asbestos cement sheets (A.C. sheets) and some other products. For the assessment year 1977-78, it filed a return disclosing a turnover of Rs. 92,28,018.93, out of which it claimed exemption in respect of a turnover of Rs. 60,98,149.10 as representing the second sales of asbestos cement sheets. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the same from Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Industries. Asbestos cement sheets are taxable at the first point of sale in the State. The exemption claimed by the petitioner was granted by the assessing authority in the order of assessment dated 8th January, 1979. 2. During the course of inspection by an officer of the department in the year 1983, it was found that asbestos cement sheets valued at Rs. 7,48,595.34 out of the exempted turnover claimed by the petitioner (Rs. 60,98,149.10) during the assessment year 1977-78 were purchased by the petitioner at Vallabh Nagar, in...
Indian Bank Vs. Datta Venkata Chinna Krishna Raju
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-1988
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas451(AP)
P.A. Chowdary, J.1. The appellant in this Second Appeal No. 812 of 1987 was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 42 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Narasapur. The appellant is the Indian Bank. It was constituted by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act (Act No. 5 of 1970) passed by our Parliament. It lent monies to the defendants and sued them (the present respondents) is O.S. No. 42 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Narasapur, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,500. The plaintiff advanced the above sum of money under the Agricultural Short-term Productions Loan Scheme and the defendents borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,000 from the plaintiff-bank. The defendants executed a promissory note on June 2, 1978. Additionally, the repayment of the said amount was fully secured by hypothecation of the defendants' crops, present and future, grown over an area of Ac. 5.00 of land in R.S. No. 228 of Bangiligudem village, and belonging to the defen...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jeyapore Sugars Co. Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR627(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Two questions are stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. They are as under : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 31,26,459 being excess levy sugar price collected by the assessee cannot be considered to be the income of the assessee-company (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate tribunal was right in upholding the order of the commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the income-tax Officer to correlate the loss of Rs. 74,486 due to day to day fluctuation of exchange rate with reference to the specific items of machinery the deferred payment for which has resulted in the expenditure/loss and to treat the expenditure as addition to the cost of the relevant assets on proportionate basis, and to allow depreciation including extra shift allowance ?' 2. SO far as ques...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijaya Chemicals
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR311(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing grant of registration to the firm for the assessment year 1977-78 ?' 2. The relevant facts are that the assessee-firm filed an application in Form No. 11 on January 31, 1976, enclosing the partnership deed dated January 28, 1976, for registration of the firm for the assessment year 1977-78. In the first instance, the Income-tax Officer made a best judgment assessment. It was set aside on an application made under section 146. Thereafter, assessment was made again under section 144 on the ground that the assessee has failed to produce the account books called for by a notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act. Simultaneously with the assessment order, the Income-tax Offi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.B.R. Mills Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-1988
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(AP)148; [1988]174ITR442(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, has stated the following question for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing the deduction of Rs. 9,54,947 claimed as expenditure towards gratuity ?' 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of textiles. The question arises with reference to the assessment year 1977-78, the relevant accounting year being the year ending on June 30, 1976. 3. The assessee created a trust for gratuity fund for the benefit of employees on November 26, 1975, and applied for recognition which was granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh, on March 25, 1976, with effect from December 1, 1975. The assessee also got its actuarial liability determined through an actuary, Sri. P. S. Sundaram. The actuary ascertained the assessee's liability for gratuity at Rs. 25,55,725 as on June 30...
international Packaging Industries Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-1988
Reported in: [1990]76STC39(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The only question that arises in this T.R.C. is whether the petitioner, a manufacturer of gunnies, is entitled to claim exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in respect of the turnover relating to sale of gunnies in favour of three firms, viz., M/s. Indian Barytes and Chemicals, M/s. Ramalingeswara Pulverising Mills and M/s. Star Barytes, Cuddapah (Private) Limited. At the relevant time, the export of barytes was canalised and only M.M.T.C. or mine-holders holding lease as on 31st March, 1978, were permitted to export. Even the mine-holders holding lease as on 31st March, 1978, were entitled to export only to the extent of their production and subject to floor-price-mechanism - vide Public Notice No. 16 dated 2nd February, 1979, issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Civil Supplies and Co-operation, Department of Commerce, Government of India. The barytes filled in the gunnies sold by the petitioner was exported by K. Obul Reddy (in the c...
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Dhanalakshmi General Stores
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1988
Reported in: [1988]71STC218(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. The Tribunal was right in our opinion, in holding that the order of penalty in this case is barred by limitation. The relevant dates are the following : The original assessment order was served upon the assessee on 20th July, 1978. Thereafter the assessment was reopened under sub-section (4) of section 14 and order of reassessment was made on 31st July, 1979. Simultaneously penalty proceedings were also initiated, but for one or the other reason, which is not Clear from the record, the order of penalty was made only on 15th February, 1983. It was served on the assessee on 3rd March, 1983. It needs no reiteration that this penalty was levied under sub-section (4) itself. Sub-section (4-A) prescribes the period of limitation for anyion under sub-section (4). It says : 'Any assessment or levy under sub-section (4) shall be made within a period of four years from the date on which any order of assessment or levy was served on the dealer.' 2. Sub-section (4) provides for...
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Mayur Crystal Palace
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC147(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. The main question that arises in this tax revision case is whether glass chandeliers can be brought within entry 123 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act as it stood at the relevant time. The assessment year concerned herein is 1979-80. At that time, entry 123 of the First Schedule read as follows : '123. Glass and glassware, that is to say :- (i) sheet glass and plate At the point first 6 paise inglass; sale in the State. the rupee.'(ii) mirrors;(iii) laboratory glassware;(iv) glass shells, glass globesand chimneys for lamps andlantern;(v) other glassware includingtable-ware. 2. The Commercial Tax Officer treated the chandeli ers as general goods in the first instance and levied tax accordingly. Subsequently he reopened the assessment under section 14(4) of the Act and taxed the chandeliers under entry 123. 3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal on two grounds. Firstly it held that this was not a case where the power of reopening c...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »