Andhra Pradesh Court March 1998 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, A.P.-i, Hyderabad Vs. T.T.D. Co-op Stores ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALD7; [1998]232ITR109(AP)
ORDERT.N.C. Rangarajan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. Ratnakar and Sri P.S.R. Chandra Murthy, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. These three references raise identicalquestions and can be disposed of by a common order.3. The assesses is a Co-operative Society engaged in the business of purchasing provisions and other goods which are sold mostly to the members of the Society. It also cams interest and other miscellaneous income. At the end of the year after ascertaining the profits, the Society declared rebate to the members. 4. For the assessment year 1980-81 the Income-Tax Officer allowed the rebate distributed to the members as a deduction in computing the assessee's total income. Subsequently he found that the assessment for the assessment year 1981-82 had been revised by the Commissioner of Income-Tax. He accordingly treated that as an information and re-opened the assessment to disallow the rebate. This was carried on appeal and the Appellate Tri...
Venkateswara Rice Mills, Uppal Vs. Superintending Engineer, Operation ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALD101; 1998(3)ALT775
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J1. In these writ petitions filed by High Tension Electricity Consumers, there are two questions which have to be answered by this Full Bench. They are :--(1) When the electricity charges are permitted to be paid in instalments, whether in addition to interest under para 34 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, additional charge (also called as 'surcharge') as contemplated by para 32.2.1 is payable simultaneously on the outstanding amount ?(2) How and in what manner the interest has to be calculated under para 34 i.e., whether the entire amount payable on the date of grant of instalments should bear interest and surcharge at the prescribed rate till the last date of payment or whether it should be calculated with reference to the remaining amount payable afterdeducting the amount paid in instalments from time to time ?2. As the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench felt that the view taken by the same Division Bench in W.P.No.8287 of 1988 is open to...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Co-operat ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(AP)91
ORDERT.N.C. Rangarajan, J.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. Ratnakar & Sri P.S.R. Chandra Murthy,learned counsel for the respondents.These three references raise identical questions and can be disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the business of purchasing provisions and other goods which are sold mostly to the members of the society. It also earns interest and other miscellaneous income. At the end of the year after ascertaining the profits, the society declared rebate to the members.For the assessment year 1980-81 the Income Tax Officer allowed the rebate distributed to the members as a deduction in computing the assessees total income. Subsequently, he found that the assessment for the assessment year 1981-82 had been revised by the Commissioner. He accordingly treated that as an information and re-opened the assessment to disallow the rebate. This was carried on appeal and the Tribunal following its own orders for ...
Mirza Hameed Ali Baig @ Hameed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD569; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)475
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J. 1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No.109 of 1996 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad is the appellant before us. The accused was charged that on 8-10-1994 in Khaja Nagar, Tadband, Hyderabad, committed murder intentionally and knowingly causing the death of one Syedunnisa Begum and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was secondly charged that on the same day in KhajaNagar,Tadband, Hyderabad, attempted to commit suicide, inflicted injuries on his person with a knife and also consumed Gemaxin powder, a poisonous substance and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the deceased Syedunnisa Begum and the accused arc mother and son. The accused was married around 11/2 years prior to the date of offence. His wife delivered a son. The accused and deceased were staying together in the same house. Quite often the...
Andhra Bank, Inkollu Vs. Chittabathuni Sree Ramulu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD675; 1998(3)ALT480; [1998]94CompCas220(AP)
ORDER1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26th October, 1984 in O.S.No.191/82 so far as the decree relates to scaling down of the interest on the loan amount.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that eventhough the loan was advanced for agricultural purposes, but in view of Section 21A of the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 1983 such a scaling down is not permissible. He further submitted that Section 4(c) of A.P. (Andhra Area) Agriculturist Relief Act, 1938 does not apply to the facts of this case. In view of Section 21A of the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 1983 (for short the Act) the defendant would not be entitled for benefit of Section 4(e) regarding the scaling down of the interest. He further submitted that the Court below has erred in relying upon the judgment of a Division Bench of mis Court reported in Indian Bank Alamuru v. Muddana Krishna Mitrthy, AIR 1983 AP 347 since the same has already been o...
Trichy Distilleries and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Reliance Cellulose Products ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD603; 1998(3)ALT388; [1999]97CompCas95(AP)
ORDER1. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit O.S.77/96 on the file of the V Additional Judge, C.C.C., Hyderabad. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,25,692.50 from the petitioner. The petitioner was set ex-parte and the suit was decreed on 2.9.1993. The respondent filed execution petition E.P.65/93. In the execution proceedings the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- towards part satisfaction of the decretal amount of Rs. 8,91,194/-. The petitioner's application I.A. 1177/93 filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree, was allowed on 4,7.1996 and the ex parte decree was set aside. Threafter, the petitioner filed the present applications, I.A.717/95 seeking restitution and for directing the respondent to pay back the amount of Rs. 1,60,000/-, which was paid by the petitioner subsequent to passing of the ex-parte decree. The Court below, however, dismissed the application on the ground that the respondent-Company was declared as si...
Delta Acqua Feeds Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: [2003]133STC3(AP)
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ to declare that the stay granted by the third respondent on December 31, 1996 and extended by him by an order dated April 24, 1997 for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 under Section 19(2-B) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, continues to operate, pending disposal of the appeal filed before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pending the first appeal, the third respondent [Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Legal)] granted stay subject to certain conditions which the petitioner has complied with. It is contended that in view of the mandate of Sub-section (2-C) of Section 19 of the Act, the said stay order granted by the Joint Commissioner will enure to the benefit of the petitioner till the disposal of the second appeal by the Tribunal. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that questioning the order passed by the first appellate au...
Subbshree Trading Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Comme ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: [1998]111STC144(AP)
ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. Heard both the learned counsel at the stage of admission.2. The provisional assessment orders dated March 20, 1998 passed for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 are being challenged in this writ petition.3. It is surprising why the provisional assessment has been resorted to long after the expiry of relevant assessment years. Another extraordinary step taken by the assessing officer is that having waited for two years to make such assessment, he restricts the tune for payment to seven days as against the normal time of 30 days allowed by the Rules. Even before the expiry of appeal time, the respondent concerned acted overzealously and in unseemly haste to collect the tax, more so when a substantial question needs to be decided in appeal. The orders of this nature undoubtedly undermine the confidence of the tax-payers in the administration of tax law and gives rise to an undesirable impression that the department is following the principle of end ju...
Kummari Ramanna and anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD616; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)635; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)462; 1998CriLJ2716
ORDERNeelam Sanjiva Reddy, J.1. A-l and A-2in S.C.No, 502/96 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Kurnool, are the appellants. They were tried on charges framed under Section 302 IPC or in the alternative on the charge framed under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, and they were found guilty of the said charge and accordingly convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.2. The substance of the charges against the accused is that on 22-11-95 at about 9.00 am. in between Nagendra Nagar and NTR Nagar of Kallur Village, in the footpath in the cholam field, A-l (Kummari Ramanna) and A-2 (Kummari Lakshman) committed the murder of one Kummari Pakiraiah (herein after referred to as thedeceased) by attacking him with hunting sickle and dagger.3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the husband of PW-1 (Kummari Govindamma) and son of PW-2 (Kummari Sanjanna). They were originally natives of Sankirenipalli village of Nandikotkur Taluk. As most of their lands were submerged under Srisailam Proje...
M. Venkateswara Rao Vs. Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALD37; 1998(4)ALT654
ORDER1. Rule nisi. Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Standing Counsel took notice for flic respondent-Company. Writ petition was heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is a contractor and being aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Company in insisting that the petitioner should deposit earnest money deposit (E.M.D.) by way of demand draft in order to participate in the tender proceeding to award the proposed work contract, he has filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the aforementioned action of the respondent-Company is arbitrary, capricious, unfair and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, for a consequential direction to the respondent-Company to accept fixed deposit receipts or Bank guarantee as E.M.D for the tender notification CPR 0/50/ KGM/98/45.3. Mr. Ghanta Rama Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the insistence of the respondent-Company that the E.M.D. shoul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »