Andhra Pradesh Court August 1987 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.
Veljan Hydrair (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-13-1987
Reported in: [1989]177ITR552(AP)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Two questions are referred for the opinion of this court, one at the instance of the assessee and the other at the instance of the Revenue. The question referred at the instance of the Revenue is: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 paid to Flick-Reedy Corporation, USA, was correctly classified as revenue expenditure ?' The question referred at the instance of the assessee is as follows: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that only one-fifth of the disclosure fee of Rs. 1,50,000 payable to the foreign collaborator was an allowable deduction in the assessment year 1974-75 ?' 2. The assessee-company carries on business in manufacture of air and hydraulic cylinders, valves filters, lubricators, regulators, etc. The assessee was, inter alia, manufacturing spool type valves since 1967-68. The assessee wanted to improve its product by manufacturing seal-less ty...
Jaya Food Industries Private Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Nampally ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: [1991]82STC319(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. The only question that arises in this writ petition is whether 'vermicelli' manufactured and sold by the petitioner under the trade name 'Bambino vermicelli' falls under entry 129A of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. 2. Previously, i.e., before the introduction of entry 129A, a controversy had arisen when the department sought to treat these goods as general goods - different from 'maida'. 'Maida' is taxable under entry 60 of the First Schedule. It was held in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Karnatakam Govindayya Setty and Sons , that 'vermicelli' is nothing but 'maida' drawn into thin strands. It was, therefore, held that the said goods cannot be taxed as general goods. Since the rendering of the said decision, entry 129A has been introduced by G.O.Ms. No. 630, Revenue dated May 30, 1986, with effect from June 1, 1986. (The said G.O. has later been replaced by Act 19 of 1986). Entry 129A reads as follows : 'Articles of processed food...
Ranjit Kumar Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Naidupeta, Nellore District a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: [1988]71STC502(AP)
K. Bhaskaran, C.J. 1. Petitioners are different; but the questions of law raised are common; hence these two writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. It would suffice to state the facts in W.P. No. 2121 of 1987 for deciding the questions of law raised. The petitioner is a civil engineering contractor having its office at Madras. For the time being, it has civil engineering contracts with Department of Space, Government of India, at Sriharikota, Nellore district, in the State of Andhra Pradesh. As the petitioner did not trade in any goods, it did not get itself registered earlier as a dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('APGST Act'). The petitioner, however, got itself registered and obtained a registration with effect from 1st July, 1985 on which date the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (Act 18 of 1985) came into force, inasmuch as under the said Act transfer of property in the goods used in executi...
T. Jagadish and ors. Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-1987
Reported in: AIR1988AP290
Rama Rao, J.1. These writ petitions are for issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring that Rules 2 and 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Protective Headgears) Rules, 1980 and Rule 498-A of the (A. P.) Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964 are unconstitutional, illegal and void and consequently directing the respondents not to insist upon the general public wearing helmets compulsorily. 2. The averments in support of the writ petitions may be briefly stated: The petitioners are having two-wheeler vehicles and they drive them. Rule 498-A was introduced by G. O. Ms. No. 983 dated 28-10-1976 insisting upon wearing helmets while driving two wheeler vehicles. Thereafter Section 85-Awas inserted by amendment Act 27 of 1977 providing the wear of protective headgears in accordance with rules prescribed by Central Government. It is stated that the rules made by Central Government are contrary to Section 85-A. of the Act and Rule 3 made by the Central Government as well as Rule 498-A made by the State Government are ...
Rudmul Vs. State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: [1989]175ITR276(AP)
Radhakrishna Rao, J.1. The special judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, convicted the accused for the offences under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and section 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He accordingly sentenced the accused to undergo regor-ous imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 277 of the Incom-tax Act, The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to undergo regorous imprisonment for two months under each count under section 193 and 196 Of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal,the lower appelate court found that no case has been made out so far as the offence under section 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, and acquitted the accused of those charges. So far as the conviction of the accused for the offence under section 277 of the Incometax Act is concderned, it has been confirmed by the lower ...
P. Satyanarayana Through His Wife P. Mahalakshmi Vs. I. Babu Rajendra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC510
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. This appeal raises questions relating to assessment of non-pecuniary damages in cases such as loss of both eyes and severe head injury resulting in total loss of mental faculties. Today the appel- lant is mentally unsound.2. The accident occurred in Kakinada town on 4-4-1979 at about 1 00 p.m. when the appellant who was going on a bicycle was knocked down by the jeep belonging to the District Collector's office. The appellant was then aged 25 years. He was married and his wife, two young daughters and a son are dependent on him. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has held that negligence on the part of the jeep driver was not established and dismissed the claim totally. On quantum, it held that evea if there should be an award, it should be Rs. 25,000/- for the per nanent disability (on the basis of monthly earnings of Rs. 200/-) and Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses and for pain, suffering etc , in all, Rs. 30,000/-. The claimant has preferred this appeal. Both fin...
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Ramireddi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC166
A. Lakshmana Rao, J.1. These four appeals arise out of the common order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddapah dated 11-1-1982 in OP. Nos. 86 and 87 of 1980. C.M.A. No. 327 of 1982 and CM.A. No. 664 of 1984 arise out of O.P. No. 87 of 1980 and C.M.A. Nos. 336 and 607 of 1982 arise out of OP. No. 86 of 1980. C.M.A. Nos. 327 and 336 of 1982 were filed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, whereas C.M.A. No. 607 of 1982 and C.M.A. No 664 of 1984 were filed by the claimants.2. The claimants were travelling by A.P.S.R.T.C. bus on 16-5-1980 from Pulivendla to Kadiri. The bus met with an accident and both the claimants sustained injuries as a result of that accident. Therefore, they filed OP. Nos. 86 and 87 of 1980 in the Tribunal for Motor Accidents Claims, Cuddapah, claiming compensation under various heads such as permanent disability, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, medical expenses etc. Both the O.Ps. were clubbed together for the purpose of trial. Seven w...
S. Gopal Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(AP)271; [1988]170ITR660(AP)
Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal made this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question referred relates to the income-tax assessment year 1977-78 and is extracted below : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of interest of Rs. 16,834 is correct in law either under section 67(3) or under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee and his three minor sons constituted a Hindu joint family. The family held the shares in two partnership firms known as 'Rami Reddy & Co.' and 'Sri Laxmi Prasanna Sugar Factory'. On behalf of the family, the karta held the shares in the partnership firms in a representative character. The total investment of the joint family in the two partnership concerns was Rs. 2,25,558 as on August 31, 1974. There was a partition of the joint family assets on August 31, 1974, between the a...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. C.S. Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-1987
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(AP)251; [1988]174ITR612(AP)
Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has made this reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. The question referred for the consideration of this court is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of the assessee's interest in the assets of Venugopal Rice Mills which has been leased out ?' 2. The assessee filed his wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1974-75 declaring his net wealth which included interest in a partnership firm known as Venugopal Rice Mills. The partnership interest was assessed at Rs. 9,029 and exemption was claimed in respect of the same under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. The Wealth-tax Officer rejected the claim for exemption on the ground that the firm was defunct and no business was carried on during the previous yea...
Dinesh Auto Finance Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1876
Amareswari, J.1. The petitioner is M/s. Dinesh Auto Finance, represented by its Proprietor. They filed this Criminal Revision against the order of the First Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad dated 3-1-1986 directing search and seizure of the property in exercise of power conferred under Sections 94 and 100, Cr.P.C.2. The lorry ATT 6438 was purchased by the complainant Hussain Shareef (the 2nd respondent in the Criminal Revision Case) by taking a loan from the Financiers under a hire purchase agreement dated 6-4-1984. The 2nd respondent gave a complaint to the Chaderghat Police Station on 6-12-1985 that the lorry which was parked in front of the Crown Steel Iron Works was stolen by some unknown persons on 1-12-1985. The complaint was registered as Crime No. 309/85 and is under investigation. The complainant then filed a petition in Cri. M.P. No. 2248 of 1985 stating that he learnt that the lorry was illegally kept in the premises of Hyderabad Spun Pipe Industries, Uppal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›