SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1843

SUJATA V. MANOHAR, K. S. PARIPOORNAN, A. M. AHMADI
Commissioner Of Income Tax, A. P. – Appellant
Versus
B. Posetty And Company – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Paripoornan, J.-The Revenue has filed this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 22.8.1977 rendered in Case Referred No. 45 of 1975. The High Court granted a certificate under Section 261 of the Income Tax Act to appeal to this Court, in S.C.L. Petition No. 57 of 1978. The assessee is the respondent in this appeal.

Since the respondent (assessee) was not represented, we requested Sri V.A. Bobde (senior counsel) to assist us. We heard counsel for the Revenue Sri J. Ramamurthy and Sri V.A. Bobde.

2. The short question involved in this Appeal is:-

Whether the respondent-assessee firm is entitled to registration under Income Tax Act for the year 1966-67? The Income Tax Officer by his order passed under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 28.12.1970, held that the respondent-assessee- sub-partnership - contravenes the provisions of Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abkari Act (hereinafter referred to as the Abkari Act ) and so, the sub-partnership should be considered as void and illegal. Section 14 of the Act is to the following effect :-

"No lessee shall, except with the permission of Government, declare any person to be














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top