Andhra Pradesh Court February 1995 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Intraven Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: (1995)125CTR(AP)269; [1996]219ITR225(AP)

T.N.C. Rangarajan, J.1. The short facts leading to this reference are that the assessee had borrowed some money on hundis and repaid the same during the previous year ended March 31, 1978, corresponding to the assessment year 1978-79, through demand drafts. The Income-tax Officer noted that section 69D provides for disallowance of any amount repaid otherwise than through an account payee cheque drawn on a bank. He was of the opinion that repayment by demand draft did not satisfy the condition and added back the sum of Rs. 11,600 with interest thereon totalling Rs. 1,744 in computing the total income of the assessee. The assessee appealed and contended that there can be no distinction between an account payee cheque and a demand draft, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal considered the various decisions cited before it regarding the nature of a cheque and a draft, and came to the conclusion that so far as the...

Ravulapati Krishna Krupal Vs. Ch. Venkateswararao and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1995(1)ALT533

ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. The petitioner is an auction-purchaser in the sale proceedings that were held pursuant to the orders passed on 26-8-1994 in E.P.59 of 1986, arising out of judgment and decree in O.S. No. 313 of 1978. Mr. Venkateswara Rao (respondent No. 1 herein) is the judgment-debtor and Punjab National Bank (respondent No. 2 herein) is the decree-holder. After obtaining the decree, the decree-holder for its realisation brought the properties of judgment-debtor for sale including the one purchased by the petitioner herein. The date of auction sale was 23-4-1993. The bid amount was Rs. 25,500-00. As per the sale notice, the petitioner deposited 1/4th of the bid amount on the next day. On 26-8-1994 the judgment-debtor filed a petition seeking permission to deposit the decretal amount of Rs. 63,000-00 which was allowed by the executing Court treating the said application as one filed under Order XXI Rule 89 C.P.C. The said application was in fact opposed by the petitioner h...

Singreddy Ramana Murthy Vs. National Insurance Co. and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The complaint is filed against the National Insurance Company i.e. opposite parties 1 to 3 for a direction to pay Rs. 1,64,867/- with interest at 18% from the date of the claim and also for damages of Rs. 1 lakhs. 2. The case of the complainant is that he was the owner of the mechanised Fishing Boat No. KKD 1606 which was valued at Rs. 3,40,000/- and was insured with the opposite parties Insurance Company on 21.10.88 for a sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- covering the period from 21.10.88 to 20.1.89. On 12.12.88 at Krishnapatnam while carrying on fishing operations, due to heavy and high velocity cyclone winds, the above boat ran at ground, broke into pieces and sank. The complainant immediately on 13.12.88 informed the third opposite party about the mishap and made arrangements for salvage operations. But the vessel could not be refloated and there was extensive damage to the vessels hull, superstructure, and the salvage boats could not pull the vessle to deep...

K. Seetharama Prasad Vs. Andhra Bank Ltd. and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1995(1)ALT320; (1996)IIILLJ93AP

ORDER1. The petitioner was directly recruited by the Management of the first respondent-Bank on March 13, 1978 in Junior Management Grade-I cadre. After completion of two years training for the direct recruit Junior Officer, the petitioner was drafted as Technical Officer and he was posted as Technical Officer at Hyderabad Main Branch. Later the petitioner was promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale (MMGS)-II on August 5, 1983. At present the petitioner is working as Technical Officer in Sultan Bazaar Branch of the respondent Bank in the City of Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner came under zone of consideration for promotion from M. M. G. S. -II to M. M. G. S. -III during the year 1993. Accordingly the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'D. P. C.') constituted by the bank for screening the candidates, interviewed the petitioner on September 18, 1993 at Vijayawada for consideration his case for promotion from M. M. G. S. II to M. M. G. S. III. In the list of successful candidates ...

Waheed Ahmed Khan Vs. Krishna Kumar

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President: 1. The respondent herein filed a complaint before the District Forum, Hyderabad claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, as the opposite party who was engaged to cover the complainant's marriage ceremony by Video delivered defective tape in which only few minutes function was videographed. 2. The complainant's case is that on 25.5.1991, on request, the opposite party visited the residence of the complainant at Jambagh and B. Ramesh Babu has shown the venue of the marriage to the opp. party and the father of the complainant gave an advance of Rs. 300/- to the opposite party by taking a receipt Ex. A-l. The next day i.e. on 26.5.1991 the opp. party sent two assistants with Video camera to videograph the marriage. But when he delivered the cassette to the complainant, most of the cassette was found to be blank, except the last portion of the function. This according to the complainant is due to opposite party not taking proper care to check up wheth...

Kancherla Saradha Devi Vs. Saripella Sivaramaraju and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1995AP291; 1995(1)ALT556

ORDER1. In this revision petition the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Mummidivaram in l.A. No. 82/94 in O.S. 206/85 dated 2-3-1994 is challenge. Therein the learned Munsif allowed LA. 82/94 filed under Order.,13, Rule 2 of the C.P.C. and accepted the documents produced by the defendants by condoning the delay in filing the same. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. Respondents are the defendants.2. In l.A. 82/94, the defendants sought to produce a document said to be a Xerox copy of an agreement and while producing they explained the delay in producing the same. Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 are brothers while defendant No. 5 is their mother. Defendant No. 2 filed the affidavit in support of the application stating that certain documents were filed earlier, that their uncle one Sari-pella Surapa Raju was looking after the affairs after the death of their father and he was having the custody of all the documents, that he also suddenly died in January, 1992 and therefore, the orig...

Chebolu Jagannadha Rao and Etc. Vs. the Collector and District Magistr ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1995(1)ALT543; 1995CriLJ1851

M.N. Rao, J. 1. As common questions arise in these two writ petitions, they are disposed of by this judgment. Two detention orders passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam on 6-10-1994 and 7-10-1994 under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as the 'ACT') are challenged in these two writ petitions. 2. Writ Petition No 21823 of 1994 concerns with the legality of the order dated 6-10-1994 by which Chebolu Jagannadha Rao, a registered owner of oil tanker bearing No. AP 31 U 1189, was detained on the ground that he was indulging in illegal activities by diverting kerosene oil meant for public distribution system in bulk quantities into open market for pecuniary personal gain in connivance with the wholesale kerosene oil dealers of Madugula and Chodavaram in contravention of Clause 3(2) of Kerosene Oil (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Prices) Order 1993 and C...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.H. Joshi

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1995]216ITR482(AP)

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. This is an application by the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a partner in two firms. From out of his income from the firms, he claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 50,000. That claim was upheld by the Income-tax Officer. However, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax directed the Income-tax Officer to delete the deductions and assess the said amount. On appeal by the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored that of the Income-tax Officer. Thereafter, the Revenue sought reference of the following question of law to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 35CCA in respect of payments made from income derived out of share income from the firms ?' 2. The Tribu...

V. Ch. Veera Raju Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1995(1)ALT856; [1995]216ITR422(AP)

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question is referred to us for our opinion under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of section 20 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 has been validly made on the bigger Hindu undivided family of Vulli Kamaraju ?' 2. For the reasons which we state below, we are inclined to answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue. 3. The facts that give rise to the above reference are : the assessee filed the wealth-tax return with reference to the bigger Hindu undivided family comprising himself and his son, Vulli China Veera Raju, disclosing the net wealth as nil on the ground that on the valuation date, namely, March 31, 1979, there was full partition between him and his son, China Veera Raju, and, therefore, there was no wealth which could be subjected to wea...

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Orient General Industries Ltd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2003]133STC66(AP)

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. These three tax revision cases arise out of the common order of the Tribunal dated June 10, 1986. These revisions are filed by the State. The question raised in these tax revision cases is, whether the rotor and starter which are component parts of compressor can be treated as component parts of a refrigerator.2. The Tribunal applied the test that starters or rotors themselves have no separate identity and that, they are only component parts of compressor. It noted that no one in commercial circles would understand them as component parts of a refrigerator, although there was no difficulty in understanding them as component parts of compressor or electrical motor. Applying this test, it held that the said goods are not component parts of a refrigerator. We approve the approach of the Tribunal and accordingly we find no merit in these Tax Revision Cases. They are accordingly dismissed....