Andhra Pradesh Court June 1999 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. Sree Krishna Pulverising Mills
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-1999
Reported in: [2000]106TAXMAN347(AP)
Maruthi, J.The Tribunal referred the following four questions for the opinion of this Court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that crushing barytes into powder is a manufacturing activity/production of article for the purpose of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the Income Tax Officer to allow deduction under section 80HH or section 80-I subject to the fulfilment of other conditions specified therein ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that non-maintenance of separate profit and loss accounts and balance sheets for three units could be regarded as an exceptional circumstance for computation of...
Chalamalasetty Srinivasa Rao Vs. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excis ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD95; 1999(4)ALT130
ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Prohibition, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad dated 28-12-1998 in Proceedings Cr. No.2434/ DPE/98/B2 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the order of the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Machilipatnam, dated 3-9-1998 in Proceedings No.2909/98/C2, cancelling the licence of the petitioner.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the validity of the impugned proceedings contended that the impugned orders are passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Elaborating this contention, the learned Counsel would point out that despite the petitioner requesting the 2nd respondent - the original authority to furnish copy of the Panchanama drawn on 30-7-1998, the 2nd respondent authority did not furnish copy of the same. The learned Counsel would also point out that in the reply to the show-cause notice issued under Section 31 of the Act, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›