Andhra Pradesh Court April 1955 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, Madras Vs. Krishnamma and Co., Gudur
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1955AP262
Subba Rao, C.J. (1) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench'B' has referred the following question under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act to the High Court of Judicaqture, Madras:'Whether it is open to the Income-tax Officer, after holding that a firm is genuine, to pass an order refusing registration under the provisions of S. 26-A, Income-tax Act purporting to be under Section 23 of the Act'.The reference has been transferred to this Court after its constitution.(2) The assessee firm had five partners, one of whom was a minor represented by his father and guardian. The partnership was reduced to writ-guardian. The partnership was reduced to writing and it was registered under S. 26-A of the Act for the assessment year 1949-50. For the assessment year 1950-51, an appslication ofr the renewal of registration of the firm was filed under Section 26-A of the act on 30-9-1950. As objection was taken to that deed on the ground that one of the partners was a minor, a fresh deed of partn...
M.M.A.K. MohiddIn Thamby and Co., Eluru Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1955
Reported in: [1955]28ITR252(AP)
Subba Rao, C.J. (1) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'B' referred the following questions under S. 66 (1), Indian Income-tax Act to the High Court of Judicature, Madras(i) 'Whether there was definite information in the possession of the Income-tax Officer in consequence of which he could have discovered that there was an under-assessment within the meaning of Section 34 as it stood before its amendment in 1948? (ii) Whether the re-assessment of Rs.11,185/- is a vliad.'The said reference was tranferred to this Court afterits constitution.(2) The facts that gave rise to the reference may be breiefly stated. M. M. A. K. Mohiddin Thumby and Co., was a firm having four tanneries at Eluru and one at Guntur. Its head office was situated at Eluru. The following were the six partners of the firm:1. M. M. Mohamed Mama Labbai, 2. M. K. A. S. Syed Mohammad. 3. Vavoo Mohammad Hasana Labbai. 4. O. M. Ahmed Mohideen Sadaktulla. 5. Velak Mohammed Shekna Labbai. 6. Velak Mohammad Mohidee...
Penumatcha China Hanumantharaju Vs. Marisetti Ramanna and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ1221
ORDERSubba Rao, C.J.1. This is a revision against the order of the learned District Magistrate, Eluru, West Godavari, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Sub-Magistrate discharging five of the seven accused,2. The facts that gave rise to the revision may be briefly stated. The petitioner filed a complaint against seven accused under Section 427, .Indian Penal Code, alleging that the said accused damaged and destroyed cocoanut seedlings which he had planted along the Rameswaram Channel bund between mile 1/5 and 1/7 and caused damage to him. The learned Sub-Magistrate, after recording evidence, discharged the five respondents under Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant preferred a revision to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate mainly relying upon the decision of the Madras High Court in In re Jayaraman, ILR (1949) Mad 137 : AIR 1949 Mad 66 (A), dismissed it on the ground that a revision does not lie against a dis...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Krishnamma and Co., Gudur.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-15-1955
Reported in: [1955]28ITR273(AP)
SUBBA RAO, C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench B, had referred the following question under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act to the High Court of Judicature, Madras :'Whether it is open to the Income-tax Officer, after holding that a firm is genuine, to pass an order refusing registration under the provisions of section 26A of the Income-tax Act purporting to be under section 23 (4) of the Act.'The reference had been transferred to this Court after its constitution.The assessee firm had five partners, one of whom was a minor represented by his father and guardian. The partnership was reduced to writing and it was registered under section 26A of the Act for the assessment year 1949-50. For the assessment year 1950-51, an application for the renewal of registration of the firm was filed under section 26A of the Act on 30th September, 1950. As objection was taken to that deed on the ground that one of the partners was a minor, a fresh deed of partnership was e...
Amara Eswaramma and ors. Vs. Makkam Seethamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1955AP221
Subba Rao, C.J.(1) I agree.Viswanatha Sastri, J.(2) I too agree.Bhimasankaram, J.(3) The question propounded for determination by this Full Bench relates to the amount of the proper court-fee payable on a Memorandum of Second Appeal. The plaintiffs are the appellants in the Second Appeal. They filed O. S. No. 240/1952 on the file of the District Munsif's Court. Nellore, for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties consisting of five items. On the plaint, they paid a court-fee of Rs. 164-15-0 'ad valorem' on the market value of thesaid items. The suit was decreed, and the defendant, who preferred an appeal to the Sub Court, Nellore, paid the same court-fee.The lower Appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit on 9.8.1954. Pending that appeal on 12.4.1954, the Government of Andhra issued a Notification by its G. O. No. 367 under Ss. 2 and 3, Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (Central Act 7 of 1887) making rules for the determination of the value ...
Gorrela Venkata Satteyya and ors. Vs. Mulibai and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1955AP274
(1) The defendants are the apellants. The suit was filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,433-3-9. The plaintiffs represented the interest of the mortgagees under two mortgages dated 10-1-1920 and 6-3-1920 executed by the lather of defendant 1 as well as by defendant 1 and his undivided sons, defendants 2 and 3. The mortgagees sued to enforce their mortgages in O. S. No. 70 of 1932 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Amalpuram.A preliminary decree was passed on 29-3-1935 and it was followed by a final decree dated 30-3-1936. It appears that the decree amount was scaled down to about Rs.16,000/- is C. M. P. No. 211 of 1938 on 3-11-1938. The bulk of the scaled down amount had been paid by the mortgagors before the date of the present suit which was insituted on 26-1-1948. The plaintiff's claim in the suuit, now under appeal fails under four heads: (1) Rs.2396-0-6 Consisting of sums paid by the mortgagees in order to avert a revenue sale of a portion of the hypotheca, R. S. ...
A. Ramacharlu Vs. Archakam Ananthacharlu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-06-1955
Reported in: AIR1955AP261
(1) This is an apeal against the order of the District Judge of Chittoor dismissing an application filed by the appellant under Section 67 of the Lunacy Act, to adjudge his father the 1st respondent as a lunatic and to appoint him as the manager.(2) The apellant is the son of the 1st respondent who is the alleged lunatic, and the 2nd respondent is his mother. It was alleged by the appellant in his petition that the properties mentioned in the schedule attached to the petition are the joint family properties of the appellant and the 1st respondent, that one Venkata Gowdu had taken advtange of the unsoundness of mind of the 1st respondent, brought respondents 1 and 2 under his influence and was managing the properties and appropriating the income from them.(3) As the 1st respondent was residing at a place more than 50 miles from the District Court, the District Judge directed the District Munsif of Madanapalle to hold an inquisition under Section 66 of the Lunacy Act. Accordingly the Dis...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›