Andhra Pradesh Court March 1984 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh Vs. S. Krishna Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-1984
Reported in: [1985]154ITR643(AP)
Anjaneyulu, J.1. The following two question of law a refereed to this court for its opinion under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that development rebate cannot be withdrawn by applying the provisions of Section 155(5) (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that there is not transfer or sale within the meaning of section 34(3)(b) ?' 2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1970-71. The assessee was a Hindu joint family consisting of the 'karta' and three major sons. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71, the family purchased new machinery of the value of Rs. 1,38,977 and secured deduction on account of development rebate to the extent of Rs. 48,648. On May 10, 1972, there was a partition of the joint family assets including the business of the family. After the partit...
Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(AP)324; [1985]151ITR381(AP)
Amareswari, J. 1. The question referred for our opinion is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company would be entitled to the relief under section 80J of the Act ?' 2. M/s. Electronic Corporation of India Limited, the assessee herein, is a limited company manufacturing various electronic components. It was it was floated by the Government of India with a share capital of Rs. 10,00,00,000 with an initial subscription of a sum of Rs. 80,00,000. Some of the stores, machinery, plant, equipment and manufactured goods worth about Rs. 23.86 lakhs which were with the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (for short 'BARC') were taken over by the assessee-company and the company started production from October 1, 1967. Before the ITO, the assessee claimed relief under s. 80J of the Act on the ground that the undertaking was formed for the first time by investing a sum of Rs. 23.86 lakhs on plant and machinery taken over from the BARC for the purpose of starting...
G. Venkatanarayana Vs. Karupati Laxmi Devi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-1984
Reported in: AIR1985AP1
ORDER1. This revision petition is against the order appointing a Commissioner-Doctor preferably Civil Surgeon rank and M.D. for scientific investigation of the petitioner in the main O.P. to know whether he is impotent or not and whether he is able to consummate the marriage. O.P.93/1979 was filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights the contention of the wife is that the husband is impotent and during the pendency of the original petition the wife filed an interlocutory application for the appointment of a Commissioner. In the counter-affidavit the allegation of impotency is denied and it is stated that the question of examination by competent Doctor does not arise. The Court below held that if the respondent is not suffering from any defect no harm would be caused to him if he is sent for medical examination and in this view the application is allowed. 2. In Birendra Kumar v. Hemalata Biswas, AIR 1921 Cal 459 a suit by husband under the Indian Divorce Act to declare the ...
State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1984
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(AP)224; [1985]151ITR703(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. Two questions are referred for opinion under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, one at the instance of the assessee and the other at the instance of the Revenue. The questions referred are : 2. At the instance of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, investment in securities made by the assessee in pursuance of s. 24 of the Banking Regulation Act being a statutory obligation can be treated as a transaction in the course of carrying on of trade ?' 3. 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. 9,95,621 is allowable as a deduction towards gratuity ?' 4. The assessee is the State Bank of Hyderabad, a subsidiary of the State Bank of India. It is a banking company whose activity is regulated, inter alia, by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Section 24 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, requires every banking company to 'ma...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Kothapalli Venkateswara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-1984
Reported in: AIR1985AP69
Ramachandra Raju, J.1. This is an insurer's (defendant's) appeal and arises out of a claim for Rs.23,362-11 p. made by the respondent (plaintiff in O.S.No. 276/71 on the file of the Sub Court, Vijayawada) but decree for the substantial amount of Rs. 23,081-01p. against the insurer with proportionate costs and subsequent interest. The plaintiff is the owner of a public carrier lorry bearing ADB 2367, Benz make of 1969. The vehicle was insured with the defendants under the comprehensive policy Ex.A-1 dt .3-12-1969 including coverage for claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It was involved in an accident at Kethapalli village at about 2 P.M. on 4-10-1970 while carrying some aluminium blocks from Hyderabad to Itchapuram. As a result of the accident, the vehicle fell down by the side of culvert resulting in heavy damage to the vehicle and the death of Venkateswara Rao, the driver of the lorry. One Saibaba, Radhakrishna Murthy (DW-1), Krishna Murthy (DW-2) and another P. Krishna Murt...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Superintending Engineer ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(AP)238; [1985]152ITR753(AP)
Anjaneyulu, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax these reference were made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question referred in all the three cases is identical and it will be convenient to deal with the same in this common judgment. 2.The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short, 'the Electricity Board'), the respondent in these reference made certain payments to non-residents against the purchase of machinery and equipment and also against the work executed by the non-residents in India of erecting and commissioning the machinery and equipment. The question arose whether the Electricity Board was under an obligation to deduct tax at source from these payments under s. 195 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The payments were made by the Electricity Board without deduction of tax at source. The ITO held that the Electricity Board was under an obligation to deduct tax at source under s. 195. Owing to th...
Guggilam Murahan Rao Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1253
ORDERMuktadar, J.1. The point which arises in this revision is as to what is the interpretation of the phrase 'after the institution of prosecution'. In order to appreciate this point, it is necessary to state some facts:2. The second accused, who is the petitioner before, me is, a retail vendor of food articles and he purchased from the wholesale dealer, A-1, under Bill No. 2, dt. 28-6-83 and the said bill was warranty. The Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner and after complying with all the formalities mentioned in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules, took 3 samples in 3 dry, clean and empty bottles, sent one bottle to the Public Analyst for the purpose of analysis and the other two bottles to the local (Health) Authority. On receipt of the report of the public analyst, complaint was filed against the petitioner and A-l on 27-8-83. It was returned on 8-9-83 for complying with certain requisitions. It was re-presented again on 12-9-1983 and was taken on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›