Posts

Showing posts from August, 2012

The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Parvathipuram-the respondent herein inspected the theatre in December, 1995 and passed an order dated 18.12.1995 holding that the theatre was due of an amount of Rs.38,200/- to its employees towards the difference of the actual wages and the prescribed minimum wages and a direction was issued for payment of that amount as well as penalty of equal amount within three months. 2. Complaining that the amount, as directed, was not paid, the respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.3258 of 1996 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parvathipuram under Section 20(5)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). = The approach of the Court is not correct. It must not be forgotten that the entire mechanism of the Act is provided only to ensure that the workmen are paid the wages, in accordance with law. Once a workman appears before the Court and states that he has received the wages that were determined by the authority, the proceedings must halt there. Carrying out the matter further, despite such a plea, brings about a situation where the order passed by the authority tends to become a decree in his favour. That was not at all in the contemplation of the Legislature, when it enacted the Act.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY        

WRIT PETITION No.7138 of 2001  

02.08.2012

Smt. Potta Bharati

&The Assistant Labour Officer, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District

!Council for the Petitioner: Sri O.Manohar Reddy

^Council for Respondent: G.P. for Labour

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY        

WRIT PETITION No.7138 of 2001  

ORDER:


The petitioner is owner of Veerabhadra Talkies, Parvathipuram.  It is stated
that the theatre was closed on several occasions due to local political issues,
and labour problems, and that the husband of the petitioner, who earlier worked
in the Engineering Department of Visakhapatnam Port Trust, resigned the job and
was maintaining the threatre.  The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
Parvathipuram-the respondent herein inspected the theatre in December, 1995 and
passed an order dated 18.12.1995 holding that the theatre was due of an amount
of Rs.38,200/- to its employees towards …

"So far as the comparison of the signatures or the thumb impression is concerned, such course has to be done sparingly. The Judge, who comes to an opinion after comparison, should also disclose his expertise and also give reasons for the conclusions. A mere statement that the Court is of the opinion that the thumb impressions or the signature appears to be similar is not proper since as an expert, whose evidence is to be assessed, the Judge, who is also giving his opinion, should mention the reasons".

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO          

C.R.P.No.3642 OF 2012  

03-08-2012

T.Venkat Swamy  

Agiru Pullaiah

!Counsel for the Petitioner

^Counsel for the Respondent

<Gist

>Head Note

?Cases referred
1) 2008(3) ALD 112 (SC)
2) 2011(6) ALD 741

ORDER:-
        The revision is filed against the order in I.A.No.107 of 2012 in O.S.No.16
of 2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Kollapur.

2.      The revision petitioner is the defendant.  The suit was filed for recovery
of money on the basis of a promissory note.  The trial of the case was completed
and the matter is coming for arguments.  At that stage, the present application
is filed for sending the suit document to the expert.  The Court below has
dismissed the application finding that the Court itself can compare signature
under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

3.      Naturally, delay in filing an application for expert is a good ground for
rejection of the same.  So also the comparison of the signa…

Whereas in the case on hand, the petitioner/A.3 had left India for Saudi Arabia after commission of communal offences allegedly. In that back ground, the petitioner cannot be permitted to leave India, pending criminal proceedings. In the result, the Investigating Officer is directed to submit seized passport of the petitioner/A.3 to the Magistrate along with the charge sheet and the Investigating Officer will be at liberty to take steps for impounding the petitioner's passport under Section 10(3) or under Section 10-A of the Passports Act, 1967 through Court immediately thereafter. Subject to the same, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU            

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5661 of 2012  

06.08.2012

Mohammed Arifuddin Rahman  

The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P.,

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Prabhakar Sripada

Counsel  for the Respondents:  Additional Public Prosecutor

<Gist :

>Head Note:


? Cases referred:

1. (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 674
2. 2000 CRI.L.J.4325


O R D E R:


        The petitioner/A.3 questions order dated 10.04.2012 passed by the VII
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.1046 of 2012 in
Cr.No.268 of 2000 of Malakpet Police Station, Hyderabad.  The petitioner is
accused of offences punishable under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act,
1908 and Section 153-A IPC along with two others.  He was arrested on 07.09.2011
by the Investigating Officer and the lower Court granted bail to the petitioner
on 21.11.2011 under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.  Though in the impugned order, the
lower Court stated t…

On the basis of the decree obtained by him, the 3rd respondent filed an application before the Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, the 2nd respondent herein, with a request to enter his name in the revenue records and to issue pattadar pass book and title deeds.

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY          

Writ Petition No.2176 of 2012

07.08.2012

Dharma Teja and another

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, at Attapur, Ranga Reddy
District, and others

Counsel for petitioners: Sri P. Govind Reddy

Counsel for Respondents : G.P for Revenue Sri A. Pulla Reddy for R-3

< GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:  

? Cases referred

AIR 2008 A.P. 15 (F.B)

ORDER:

The petitioners purchased an extent of Ac.1.02 guntas of land in Sy.No.2/A of
Nanakramguda Village, through a sale deed dated 07-11-2002 executed by, as many  
as 33 individuals, who are said to be the legal descendants of the original
owner of the land.
The names of the petitioners were entered in the revenue records, and it is
stated that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property.

The vendors 1 and 2, by name, P. Ravi Singh and P. Rajesh Singh are said to have
entered into an agreement of sale with
one, Sri R. Jairam Singh, the 3rd respondent herein, for sale o…

On the facts of the present case, when the assessee filed a defective return, and did not rectify the defects which were pointed out by the I.T.O., the assessing officer was bound to treat the return of income as invalid and take further proceedings on the footing that the assessee had failed to furnish the return. The assessing authority could not have proceeded to make ex parte assessment under Section 144 without serving notice under Section 139 (2) or as the case may be under Section 148. In this view of the matter and in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the above decision, we are of the view that the decision of the I.T.A.T. confirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) does not warrant any interference by this Court. Therefore, we hold that the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal have to be decided against the Revenue.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO                        

I.T.T.A.No.34 of 2000

21.08.2012

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh-I, Hyderabad.  

M/s.Bake Food Products (P) Ltd., Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

Counsel for Appellant: Sri S.R.Ashok

Senior Standing Counsel for Respondent: Sri V.Srinivas

? Cases referred
[1] (2004) 3 S.C.C. 488

JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao):  

              This appeal is filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") by the Revenue challenging the order
dated 24-04-2000 in I.T.A.No.1699/Hyd/95 (Hyderabad 'A' Bench).
2. The facts giving rise in filing of this appeal are as under:
(a) The respondent/assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year
1986-1987 on 30-06-1986 admitting a loss of Rs.16,27,167/-.  Notice under
Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued fixing the dat…
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO                        

I.T.T.A.No.34 of 2000

21.08.2012

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh-I, Hyderabad.  

M/s.Bake Food Products (P) Ltd., Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

Counsel for Appellant: Sri S.R.Ashok

Senior Standing Counsel for Respondent: Sri V.Srinivas

? Cases referred
[1] (2004) 3 S.C.C. 488

JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao):  

              This appeal is filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") by the Revenue challenging the order
dated 24-04-2000 in I.T.A.No.1699/Hyd/95 (Hyderabad 'A' Bench).
2. The facts giving rise in filing of this appeal are as under:
(a) The respondent/assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year
1986-1987 on 30-06-1986 admitting a loss of Rs.16,27,167/-.  Notice under
Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued fixing the dat…

"Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it helps in the observance of law of precedent. Absence of reasons on the contrary essentially introduces an element of uncertainty, dissatisfaction and give entirely different dimensions to the questions of law raised before the higher/appellate courts. In our view, the court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e., at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever concise they may be. We would reiterate the principle that when reasons are announced and can be weighed, the public can have assurance that process of correction is in place and working. It is the requirement of law that correction process of judgments should not only appear to be implemented but also seem to have been properly implemented. Reasons for an order would ensure and enhance public confidence and would provide due satisfaction to the consumer of justice under our justice dispensation system. It may not be very correct in law to say, that there is a qualified duty imposed upon the courts to record reasons."

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

Writ Petition No.21602 of 2012

18-7-2012

G.Prabhakar and 14 others.

Collector (Civil Supplies), Karimnagar District and 3 others.

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

Counsel for the petitioners:            Sri T.Mahender Rao

Counsel for the respondents:            AGP for Civil Supplies

?CASES REFERRED:    
1. AIR 1966 S.C. 671
2.  (2010) 2 SCC 497
3.  (2010) 3 SCC 732
4.  (2010) 4 SCC 785

Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the orders in
proceedings No.F/809/2012 of respondent No.2.
The petitioners are fair price shop dealers of Sircilla Town, Karimnagar
District.  On certain allegations levelled against them regarding the improper
distribution of essential commodities, respondent No.1 directed respondent No.2
to initiate appropriate action against them.  Accordingly, respondent No.2
issued separate but identical show cause notices, dated 28-05-2012, to the
petitioners.  The sum and substance of the said showcause n…

The petitioner submits that it acquired Ac.9.33 guntas of land in Raipalli Tanda, and made applications to various authorities, seeking permission for establishment of a factory for manufacturing frozen buffalo and sheep meat with installed capacities of 36 and 6.5 metric tonnes per day, respectively. Permissions are said to have been accorded by various authorities, including the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and the Grampanchayat.

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY          

Writ Petition No.25219 of 2012

06.08.2012

M/s Qureshi Internationl, rep. by its Managing Partner, Yousuf Mujahid.

The Director of Factories,A.P., Hyderabad, and others

Counsel for petitioner: Sri L.V. Uma Maheshwar Rao

Counsel for Respondents : G.P. for Industries, for RRs 1 to 3
                                      Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, for RRs 4 & 5
                                      G.P for Revenue for RRs 6 to 9
                                      G.P. for Home for RRs 10 & 11
                                      Sri O. Manohar Reddy, for R12
<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?Cases referred

ORDER:

The petitioner is partnership firm, involved in the activity of export and
import.  It feels aggrieved by the steps taken by the authorities of the Revenue
Department in demolishing the foundation laid for compound wall around Ac.9.33
guntas of land in Sy.No.25 of Raipalli Tanda, Parvatapur Village, Zaheerabad
Mandal,…

The assessee maintains a NRE account with South Indian Bank of Anna Nagar at Chennai. The correspondent banks of South Indian Bank remitted the brokerage and commission due to the assessee to the above said NRE account in Chennai by way of cheques/demand drafts/TTs. The assessee has not offered such remittances credited in Indian bank account for taxation on the ground that those income accrued outside India. The assessee does not have any other account in India.-The assessee is an individual. He is employed with M/s. Sayeed Mohammed Sons Traders in Singapore. The assessee is working for the last 20 years in Singapore. He is a permanent resident of that country. He mainly earns salary income which is taxed in Singapore under the Singapore's tax laws. The assessee also derives income by way of commission in import and export of agricultural produces like raw cashews. 4. The employment of the assessee is in Singapore and the salary is received and taxed under the Singapore's tax laws and therefore, the salary earned by the assessee was always Singapore income and not Indian income. - the Assessing Officer has not taken into account various explanations relating to gifts and sridhan received by those persons. Ultimately, the Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals) also held that the differences in different individual hands, if not explained, has to be assessed only in their hands. While dealing with the brokerage and commission income of the assessee, we have already held that the assessee does not earn any income in Indian taxable territory. We have also held that he is a non resident. He is employed in Singapore. The import and export transactions out of which he earned additional income are again carried out outside Indian territory. The funds available to the assessee in India are withdrawn from his account with South Indian Bank at Chennai. Therefore, even if the assessee has spent some funds in gifting gold jewellery to his family members, those funds emanated from non taxable funds available in his bank account. It does not belong to any income liable for taxation in India. Therefore, even if the proposition of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) is accepted, there is no justification for making any addition in the hands of the assessee. The addition of ` 18,66,302/- is accordingly deleted.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai V.Deenadayala Vel, Chennai vs Department Of Income Tax on 22 June, 2012 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE Dr. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 532 to 537/Mds/2012 Assessment Years : 2004-05 to 2009-10 AND C.O.No.58/Mds/2012 (in ITA No.537/Mds/2012) The Joint Commissioner of Shri V. Deenadayalavel, Income-tax(OSD), No.6,S.M.Narayana Nagar, Central Circle-IV(3), Vs. Anna Nagar, West Extn. Chennai. Chennai - 600 101. (Appellant) PAN - AAIPD 2446 F (Respondent/Cross objector) Appellant by : Ms. Anupama Shukla, IRS, CIT Respondent by : Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate & Shri B.S.Purushottam, CA Date of hearing : 14th June, 2012 Date of pronouncement : 22nd June, 2012 ORDER PER Dr. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT This is a bunch of six appeals and one cross objection. All the six appeals are filed by the Revenue for the six assessment :- 2 -: ITA 532 to 537 & CO 5…