Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Sunder Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD112; 1998(6)ALT202
ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J.1. This petition is filed for clarification of the order dated 13-5-1998. On 13-5-1998 in CMP No.9928 of 1998 we have passed the following order:'Status-quo to continue'2. It is necessary to refer briefly the previous history and facts of the case. The plaintiff in OS No.573 of 1991 is the appellant. The present appeal CCCA No.64 of 1998 is filed against the dismissal of the suit OS No.573 of 1991. The plaintiff/appellant claims that he and his predecessors were in possession of the disputed land called 'Jumerath Bazaar' (and other lands) from 1889. On every Thursday the market is held at 'Jumerath Bazaar'. In 1936, the Nizam claimed the market as his personal property, took over and gave it to Municipal Corporation ofHyderabad along with other markets on rent. On 21-9-1948, the appellant's father applied to the Sarfekhas which after holding an enquiry determined that the property belonged to the appellant's father and on 8-2-1950 the market was directed to be hand...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.P. Small Scale Industries Development ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR576(AP)
S.V. Maruthi, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue question No. 2 is referred, which is as follows :'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 42,059 cannot be categorised either as advertisement or publicity or sales promotion expenditure and consequently whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the disallowance under Section 37(3A) of Rs. 4,206 is not sustainable ?'2. The facts in brief are as follows :The assessee is a Government company incorporated with the object of promoting, industrial development in the State of Andhra Pradesh. For the assessment year 1979-80, a total expenditure of Rs. 42,059 was incurred towards publicising activity of the assessee-company, according to the Income-tax Officer. He, therefore, applied the provisions of Section 37(3A), allowed Rs. 40,000 and disallowed 1/10th of the total advertisement expenses, i.e., Rs. 4,206 for the assessment year 1979-80. On appeal, the Commissioner ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR177(AP)
Y.V. Narayana, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, in R. A. Nos. 430, 431, 250 and 251/Hyd. of 1991, dated December 20, 1991, praying to direct the Appellate Tribunal to state a case andrefer the following questions formulated by the Revenue for the opinion of the High Court :'1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that statement of Shri K. V. R. Chowdary, dated February 10, 1988, and February 11, 1988, cannot be said to be one recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act on the mere ground of he having no physical possession of valuable articles or tangible things of the assessee-company ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that constructive possession or control of things by the managing director does not suffice for invoking Section 132(4) of the Act ? 3. Whether the interpretation of the Appellate Tribunal as regards the scope and ambit under Sect...
Alapati Jalaiah Vs. Asst. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALT227
ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J.1. The petitioner is the son of one Sri Alapati Jalaiah. The said A. Jalaiah died on 29-3-96. Late A. Jalaiah was carrying on business as a proprietary concern from 1-12-1974 in the premises belonging to the 3rd respondent. After the death of A. Jalaiah, the petitioner obtained fresh registration certificate from the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. The 3rd respondent objected for the grant of the registration in favour of the son of late A. Jalaiah. Overruling the said objection the 1st respondent granted registration on 10-4-1996. Aggrieved by the same the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner for Commercial Taxes. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner for Commercial Taxes directed the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer to cancel the registration certificate issued to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition.2. The main argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 19 of the A.P.G.S.T....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.P. Small-scale Industries Development ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN629(AP)
ORDERMaruthi, J. - At the instance of the revenue, question No. 2 is referred, which is as follows:'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, expenditure of Rs. 42,059 cannot be categorised either as advertisement or publicity or sales promotion expenditure and, consequently, whet the Tribunal is justified in holding that the disallowance under sect 37(3A) of Rs. 4,206 is not sustainable2. The facts in brief are as follows:The assessee is a Government company incorporated with the object of promoting industrial development in the State of Andhra Pradesh. For the assessment year 1979-80, a total expenditure of Rs. 42,059 was incurred towards publicising activity of the assessee-company, according to the ITO. He, therefore, applied the provisions of section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), allowed Rs. 40,000 and disallowed 1/1 10th of the total advertisement expenses, ie., Rs. 4,206 for the assessment year 1979-80. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appea...
Water Users' Association, Peddacheruvu, Maddulaparva Village, Krishna ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)ALD238
ORDER1. Rule nisi. Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries took notice on behalf of the respondents. The Writ Petition was heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties.2. The Court can take notice of the feet that large number of writ petitions are filed in this Court seeking directions to the public authorities to consider and dispose of extra-legal letters, petitions, representations within time-frame. This case is one of such cases where such a request is made for a direction to the respondents to consider an extra-legal representation. The question which falls for consideration is whether such requests can be granted by this Court by virtue of the power conferred upon it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Although Article 226 of the Constitution of India speaks about the power of this Court to issue not only prerogative writs, but also orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose...
G. Purushotham Vs. Registrar, Angr Agricultural University, Rajendrana ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)ALD571; 1998(5)ALT529
1. In both the writ petitions, the appointments of the unofficial respondents as Assistant Professors in the Departments ofVeterinary Anatomy and Histology and Animal Reproduction, Gynaecology and Obstretrics respectively are assailed. Since common question of law is involved in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by a common judgment.2. For the purpose of reference to facts, the details in WP No.32064/1997 are adverted to in this judgment.3. The 1st respondent-University issued notification on 12.3.1996 and again readvertised with variation in number of vacancies on 6.1.1997 calling for applications for appointments to various posts. But, however, we are concerned in the present writ petitions with the posts of Assistant Professors in the Departments referred to above. It is the case of the petitioners that number of persons including the petitioners applied for the said posts and interviews were conducted. Ultimately, the unofficial respondents were appointed as Assistant Prof...
Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Y. Nageswar Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)ALD491; 1998(6)ALT188
ORDER1. There is 838 days delay inrepresenting the above revision. The verified petition is in a cyclostyled form and only Appeal SR number and number of days is filled in the blanks. It reads:'Verified Petition It is submitted that the above appeal (Sr. 13.046/95) was returned by the Registry of High Court with certain objections. Due to heavy rush of work and non-availability of material required, the same could not represented in time. Thus, there is some delay in representing the above appeal, which is neither wilful nor deliberate. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of (838) days in representing the above appeal and pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court maydeem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The above facts are true and correct. Sd/- xxGovernment Pleader forLand Ceiling.' Hyderabad: Dated: According to the learned Government Pleader for Land Ceiling who has verified the petition, 838 days delay is '...
Regional Manager, Apsrtc, Guntur Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribuna ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)ALD162
ORDER1. Heard Mr. K. Harinath, learned Counsel for petitioner, Mr. K.N. Jwala, the learned Counsel for 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Transport.2. Mr. K. Harinath, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to grant permit to the 3rd respondent for the route Narasaraopet Palnad bus stand to Nallagarlapadu is not a town service; as such, it is outside the scope of Rule 258 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Relying on the said Rule, he submits that as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 258, the Regional Transport Authority has to first determine whether the permit sought for, is a town service route or not and pass an order on its merits.3. In the instant case, the RegionalTransport Authority, the 2nd respondent has not determined on record whether the permit sought for, is a town service route or not; as such, the order passed by the 1st respondent suffers from the legal infirmity. He also relied on a recent u...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.M. Constructions
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR775(AP)
S.V. Maruthi, J.1. This petition is filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking reference of the following questions, viz.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in allowing higher rate of depreciation on tippers ignoring the fact that the same are not included in the items of machinery and plant for which higher rate of depreciation is admissible ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in treating the tipper as a lorry on the ground that the tippers are lorries with an extra facility of hydraulic system for easy unloading of materials and 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in allowing 40 per cent. rate of depreciation on tippers as against 25 per cent. allowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the tippers are hired out ignoring ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »