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

1984 Supreme(AP) 211

A.SEETHARAM REDDY, K.A.SWAMI
M. Krishna Murthy – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax, A. P. , Hyderabad – Respondent


SEETHARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) SEVENTY-EIGHT petitioners, employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, in this batch of 53 writ petitions have raised common questions and so, they are disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE questions canvassed are - whether the leave encashment amount and various allowances like house rent allowance, city compensatory allowance, incentive bonus, construction and bad climate allowance, shift, thermal maintenance allowance and so on, are income and even if they are, whether are they exempt from tax ?

( 3 ) HOWEVER, a four-fold preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Revenue in regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions, viz. : (1) Each of the writ petitions jointly filed by two or more persons each having a separate and distinct cause of action, suffers from the incurable infirmity of mis joinder of parties and causes of action. (2) Even if the writ petitions are held maintainable, separate court fee should be collected from each of the writ petitioners. (3) The salary disbursing officers of the petitioners employer ought not to have been impleaded as respondents herein. (4) Since the petitioners have alternative remedy o

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