Andhra Pradesh Court June 1999 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Parke Davis (India) Ltd., Hyd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(4)ALD307; (2000)158CTR(AP)601; [1999]239ITR820(AP)

ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J 1. This is an application filed by CIT, A.P.-I under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act seeking reference of certain questions of law for the opinion of this Court.2. As we are of the view that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition, we are not expressing any view on the merits on any of the questions of law to be referred for the opinion of the High Court.3. The appeals before the ITAT, Mumbai E Bench (it is not clear whether it is E bench or B bench) arose out of the assessment made for the year 1983-84 under Section 143(3) by IAC, Assessment Range - V(A), Bombay. The reference application was dismissed by Mumbai D Bench by an order dated 18-3-1997 communicated to the respondent on 15-7-1997.4. The application under Section 256(2) in our view should have been filed in the High Court of Bombay and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application. The words 'the High Court' occurri...

K. Rama Mohan Rao, Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2000]241ITR107(AP)

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. In these applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessees seek the reference of the following questions said to be questions of law arising out of identical orders of the Tribunal in I. T. A. Nos. 1236 to 1239 of 1991 dated March 21, 1994 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, is correct in holding that the interest claimed by the assessee could not be allowed as deduction ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the borrowed money invested from April to August, 1980, had no bearing or nexus to the allotment of shares by the private limited company upon the take-over of the firm in which the assessee was a partner, and that there was no nexus established between the borrowings and the acquisition of shares ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribuna...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Parke Davis (India) Ltd.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(4)ALT410

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. This is an application filed by CIT, A.P. I under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act seeking reference of certain questions of law for the opinion of this Court.2. As we are of the view that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition, we are not expressing any view on the merits any of the questions are questions of law to be referred for the opinion of the High Court.3. The appeals before the ITAT, Mumbai E Bench (it is not clear whether it is E Bench or B Bench) arose out of the assessment made for the year 1983-84 under Section 143(3) by IAC, Assessment Range - V (A), Bombay. The reference application was dismissed by Mumbai D Bench by an order dated 18-3-1997 communicated to the respondent on 15-7-1997.4. The application under Section 256(2) in our view should have been filed in the High Court of Bombay and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application. The words 'the High Court' ...

Surya Kumari, R., Smt. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2000]106TAXMAN12(AP)

ORDERVenkatarama Reddi, J.The petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') questions the order dated 10-12-1998 passed by the 1st respondent herein refusing to issue a certificate under section 230A of the Act and seeks a direction to the respondent to issue the clearance certificate. There is also a further prayer to direct the 3rd respondent (Sub-Registrar, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam) to register the sale deed that may be submitted by the petitioner. The impugned order dated 10-12-1998 reads as follows:'With reference to the above subject, I am to inform you that your application for issue of clearance certificate under section 230A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be entertained because proceedings of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam, initiated in your husband, Shri R. Mohana Rao's case are pending and as seen from the record, these proceedings do have a bearing on the investment of the property contemplated for sa...

K. Rama Mohan Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2000]106TAXMAN357(AP)

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.In these applications under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the assessees seek the reference of the following questions said to be questions of law arising out of identical orders of the Tribunal in IT Appeal Nos. 1236 to 1239 of 1991 dated 21-3-1994:'1 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, is correct in holding that the interest claimed by the assessee could not be allowed as a deduction;2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the borrowed money invested from April to August, 1980 had no bearing or nexus to the allotment of shares by the private limited company upon the takeover of the firm in which the assessee was a partner, and that there was no nexus established between the borrowings and the acquisition of shares.3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal wa...

Station Master and Another Vs. Dr. P. Sridhar

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. The questions raised in this appeal are covered by our decision in General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. M. Prem Kishore, 1998 ALD (Consumer) 98, dated 20.6.1998 against the appellants. 2. The complainant booked two tickets for his aged parents for travel from Kakinada Town Railway Station to Singarayakonda by Circar Express (train No. 7044) on 17.12.1995. The father of the complainant was given reservation for berth No. 28 in S-5 coach. The mother was wait- listed under serial number 71. As per the complaint they all reached Kakinada Town Railway Station forty minutes before the arrival of the train. After the train came the parents of the complainant got into the compartment next to S-4 coach as the number of the S-5 coach was not displayed or mentioned. At Samalkot a T.C. informed them about the cancellation of S-5 coach and asked them to travel in the general compartment without adjusting them in any other reserved compartment. Accor...

Union of India Vs. Samudrala Govinda Rajulu and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. After carefully perusing the record of the Prakasam District Forum in O.P. No. 63/1996 and its order dated 27.9.1996 therein questioned in the present appeal by the opposite party in that O.P., we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the District Forum that it had jurisdiction to entertain that O.P. and that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Authorities. 2. On the question of maintainability of the O.P. the order of the District Forum is fully supported by the decision of the National Commission in Union of India v. M. Adaikalam, II (1993) CPJ 145 (NC) = 1993 (2) CPR 94 (NC)= 1986-1995 Consumer 435 (NS), which was followed by us in General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. M. Premkishore, 1998 ALD (Consumer) 98. In the present case also there was no claim for compensation in respect of goods entrusted for carriage to a Railway Administration, or by a passenger in respect of an accident involving a train...

Maddala Venkata Phanindra Kumar Vs. the Divisional Manager, New India ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. This is an appeal preferred by the complainant in C.D. No. 89/93 on the file of the West Godavari District Forum aggrieved by the relief granted in his favour. He contends that he ought to have been granted by the District Forum the relief sought by him in his complaint. The respondent in the appeal is the opposite party in the CD. He had not preferred any appeal questioning the order of the District Forum. Therefore the finding of the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company i.e.,The New India Assurance Company Limited, remains un-challenged and had become final. 2. At the relevant time the complainant was the owner of a motor vehicle (bus) bearing No. AP-37/T-5724. He had insured the said vehicle under a policy on 27.3.1991 for a period from 28.3.1991 to 27.3.1992. That was admitted by the respondent in its version filed before the District Forum. According to the complainant under Ex. A-l letter dated 31....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. S. Surender Reddy

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: (2000)162CTR(AP)145; [2000]243ITR110(AP)

S.V. Maruthi, J. 1. The Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the asses-see, who is running a diagnostic centre, as a qualified professional, is carrying on business and/or is a small industrial undertaking, engaged in manufacture or production of an article or thing, and is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts in brief are as follows :The assessee is a qualified doctor with P. G. degree in radio therapy and is running a diagnostic centre. It is registered as a small-scale industrial undertaking. He claimed investment allowance on the same under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act in respect of the following machinery : 1. X-ray plant. 2. Modulab system which is a computerised bio-chemistry analyser for bio-chemical analysi...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sree Krishna Pulverising Mills

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2000]241ITR262(AP)

S.V. Maruthi, J. 1. The Tribunal referred the following four questions for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1, Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that crushing barytes into powder is a manufacturing activity/production of article for the purpose of deduction under Sections 80HH and 80-I 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow deduction under Section 80HH or Section 80-I subject to the fulfilment of the other conditions specified therein 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that non-maintenance of separate profit and loss account and balance-sheets for three units could be regarded as an exceptional circumstance for computation of profits and gains on a reasonable basis as envisaged u...