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.
Champalal Bhandari Vs. State of A.P. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALD690; 1999(4)ALT18
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed questioning the constitutional vires of Section 10(2)(v) of Andlira Pradesli Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Act.')2. The petitioner was a tenant of non-residential premises situated at Topkhana Road, Osmangunj, Hyderabad, of which, the 3rd respondent is the owner and was the landlady. The 3rd respondent had instituted proceedings for eviction of the petitioner in RC No.2091 of 1986 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad pleading several grounds including that of the petitioner's securing alternative accommodation which is a ground available under Section 10(2)(v) of the Rent Control Act. The Rent Controller had found only the said ground of alternative accommodation for passing his order for eviction of the petitioner from the premises and the same was upheld in appeal by the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes, Hyderabad. T...
Vice-chairmand and Managing Director, A.P.S.i.D.C. Ltd., Huda-maitriva ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD105; 1999(4)ALT124; (1999)IILLJ1436AP
ORDERM.S. Liberhan, CJ. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 19-1-1999 disposing of the WP 21901 of 1998. The appellants are the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of APSIDC Ltd., and the General Manager of the said Corporation, respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition. While disposing of the said writ petition it was declared that the action of the appellant-Corporation in not paying the three months notice pay to the writ petitioners-respondents 1 to 32 herein, is arbitrary and discriminatory and that consequently the respondents 1 to 32 in the appeal are entitled for three months notice pay. The question of payment of gratuity was declined to be adjudicated upon in the writ petition on the holding that the relevant rules in that regard have not been placed before the Court. Consequently the writ petitioners were accorded liberty to approach the appropriate forum in respectof this area of their grievance. It was further held that since th...
M.D. Rahamatullah Vs. Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Karimnagar and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALD197; 1999(4)ALT515
ORDER1. The petitioner, who is working as conductor in respondent No.1-Depot, is seeking a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction and to quash or set aside Circular/Memo No.P1/93(12)/87-PD, dated 11-7-1990 and consequential direction to respondent No.1 to sanction Special Grade with effect from 21-1-1993 together with the arrears.2. The facts leading to this writ petition in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a conductor on 21-1-1981. He was removed from service on 6-1-1987 on the ground of some irregularities allegedly committed by him in issuing tickets. He challenged the order of removal before the concerned Labour Court where an award was passed in ID No.215 of 1989 dated 19-8-1989 directing his reinstatement into service forthwith with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. Thus he completed twelve years ofservice as on 21-1-1993 and became eligible for Special Grade. Thereupon he filed a representation on 20-11-1995 before resp...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Veerabhadra Industries
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR5(AP)
S.V. Maruthi, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court at the instance of the Revenue ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee firm is entitled to the benefit of registration under the Income-tax Act, notwithstanding that the main activity of the assessee was letting out of godowns constructed by it and receiving rental income therefrom, for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 ?'2. The facts in brief are that the godowns constructed by the assessee have been let out to Aries Agro Vet Industries (P.) Ltd., the rental income from the godowns has been shown as business income and deductions like depreciation and miscellaneous expenses are claimed. The Income-tax Officer assessed the rental income under the head 'business' after allowing deductions claimed by the assessee for the a...
State of A.P. Vs. Prakash Industries
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: [2000]118STC378(AP)
ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J. 1. The issue involved in this tax revision case is whether the cast iron castings fall under entry 2 of the Third Schedule and therefore not liable to pay tax once again when they are manufactured from pig iron and cast iron scrap. Entry 2(1) of the Third Schedule reads as pig iron and cast iron including ingot, moulds, bottom plates. If cast iron castings fall under this entry and manufactured from the raw material falling under this entry this cast iron castings are not liable to be taxed once again. In this context the clarification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh is relevant. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by G.O. Ms. No. 383, Revenue, dated April 17, 1985 clarified that cast iron castings are covered within the term cast iron. Though the cast iron castings are manufactured from pig iron and scrap since it is clarified that cast iron castings fall under item cast iron and since the raw material has already suffered tax the cast iron castings are n...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sangham Enterprises
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR13(AP)
S.V. Maruthi, J.1. The following question is referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 paid to Shri A. Rami Reddy, the retiring partner, for relinquishing his 2/ 16ths share, interest and title in the properties and in the assets and liabilities, goodwill, etc., in favour of the remaining partners is a revenue expenditure deductible from the total income of the asses see-firm ?'2. The assessee is a registered partnership firm consisting of six partners. One Sri A. Rami Reddy is one of the partners having 2/16ths share in the properties of the firm. The firm was running two cinema theatres at Vizag. During the relevant assessment year 1983-84, one of the partners, Sri Rami Reddy, retired from the partnership firm on March 20, 1982. He was paid an amount ...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: [2000]118STC190(AP)
S.V. Maruthi, J. 1. The question involved in this tax revision case is whether rock phosphate is a chemical fertilizer falling under entry 23 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The relevant assessment year is 1980-81. The entry at the relevant lime is entry 23 which reads as follows :'Chemical fertilizers and bone meal'.2. Rock phosphate was treated as a fertilizer under the Fertilizer Control Order. In view of the Fertilizer Control Order treating the rock phosphate as a chemical fertilizer the Tribunal is justified in classifying the rock phosphate as a chemical fertilizer falling under the entry 23.3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the Revenue is for the earlier assessment years the Tribunal classified the rock phosphate as falling under the Seventh Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 as unclassified goods against which the assessee has preferred T.R.C. Nos. 26 and 33 of 1983 which he did not press. In view of th...
P. Kistaiah and anr. Vs. Vice-chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.R. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)ALT335
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ petition is filed by two persons jointly. The 1st petitioner claims that he worked as Conductor w.e.f. 10-2-1989 till the nationalisation of the route w.e.f., 23-2-1991. It is the case of the 2nd petitioner that he too worked as Conductor in a private bus w.e.f. 18-4-1989 till the date of nationalisation. After the nationalisation of the route w.e.f., 23-2-1991, it is stated that the petitioners laid their claims for absorption of their services in the establishment of A.P.S.R.T.C. in the year 1992 and since there was no positive response from the management of the A.P.S.R.T.C., the petitioners had filed W.P.No. 28510 of 1996 seeking its intervention. The Court disposed of that writ petition on 20-4-1997 directing the Management of the A.P.S.R.T.C. to consider the claims of the petitioners. In pursuance of the direction of the Court, the petitioners were called for interview on 22-7-1997 by the Committee constituted by the Management. Since the materials...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Veerabhadra Industries
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(AP)338; [2000]106TAXMAN370(AP)
ORDERMaruthi, J.The Tribunal referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the opinion of this Court at the instance of the revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee-firm is entitled to the benefit of registration under the Income Tax Act, notwithstanding that the main activity of the assessee was letting out of godowns constructed by it and receiving rental income therefrom, for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 ?'2. The facts in brief are that the godowns constructed by the assessee have been let out to Aries Agro Vet Industries (P) Ltd., the rental income from the godowns has been shown as business income and deductions like depreciation and miscellaneous expenses are claimed. The Income Tax Officer assessed the rental income under 'business' after allowing deductions claimed by the assessee for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sangam Enterprises
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN234(AP)
ORDERMaruth, J.The following question is referred by the Tribunal, Hyderabad, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') at the instance of the revenue:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that an amount of Rs. 1 lakh paid to Shri A. Rami Reddy, the retiring partner, for relinquishing his 2/16th share, interest and title in the properties and in the assets and liabilities, goodwill etc., in favour of the remaining partners is a revenue expenditure deductible from the total income of the assessee-firm?'2. The assessee is a registered partnership firm consisting of six partners. One Shri A. Rami Reddy is one of the partners having 2 16th share in the properties of the firm. The firm was running two cinema theatres at Vizag. During the relevant assessment year 1983-84, one of the partners, Shri A. Rami Reddy, retired from the partnership firm on 20-3-1982. He was paid. an am...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »