Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Udayalaxmi Hardware Stores - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCase Referred No. 80 of 1981
Judge
Reported in[1990]183ITR167(AP)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 186
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentUdayalaxmi Hardware Stores
Excerpt:
.....entitled to continuation of registration - relying on judicial precedent court answered in negative. - motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149 (2): [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers entitlement to defend the action joint appeal by insured and insurer - held, the language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. it shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the act, and no other grounds are available to it. the insurer is not allowed to contest the claim of the injured or heirs of the deceased on other grounds, which are available to the insured. if.....amareswari, j.1. the question referred to us is: 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the continuation of registration?' 2. following the decision in r. c. n. 65 of 1980 dated 22-11-1984 (cit v. udayalaxmi hardware stores : [1990]183itr159(ap) , the question is answered in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. no. costs. 3. [the supreme court has dismissed the special leave petition filed by the assessee against this judgment: see [1989] 180 itr 39 ed.]
Judgment:

Amareswari, J.

1. The question referred to us is:

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the continuation of registration?'

2. Following the decision in R. C. N. 65 of 1980 dated 22-11-1984 (CIT v. Udayalaxmi Hardware Stores : [1990]183ITR159(AP) , the question is answered in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. No. costs.

3. [The Supreme Court has dismissed the special leave petition filed by the assessee against this judgment: See [1989] 180 ITR 39 Ed.]


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //