Andhra Pradesh Court February 1958 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.
Narkulla Venkayya and anr. Vs. Noona Satyanarayana and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP360
Kumarayya, J.1. All the three appeals and the revision petition which are before us arise out of a suit brought by the minor plaintiffs against Narukula Venkayya and his wife Rangamma in the Zilla Court, Warangal. These plaintiffs are the grandsons of one Nuna Ramayya. who died leaving surviving him widow Nagamma and a son by the first wife, Venkayya, the father of the plaintiifs. It is common ground that after his marriage with Nagamma, Ramayya became separate from his son both in residence and food and that they used to cultivate their lands separately. According to the defendants, this was in consequence of partition between the father and the son.This position is not accepted by the plaintiffs who attribute it to mere administrative convenience, but their previous plaint filed in the Madhira Court through their maternal grand-father contains clear admission to that effect. As Nagamma had no issue she brought up her sister's daughter. Rangamma, defendant No. 2, and got her married t...
K. Rudra Rao Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Survey Circle, Vijayawada ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR216(AP)
SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J. - This is an application for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, namely (I) the Income-tax Officer, Special Survey Circle, Vijayawada, and (2) the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Vijaywada, 'to forbear from over-stepping the limits and bounds that the Income-tax Act has prescribed for the exercise of the power for conducting the enquiry pending assessment and to confine their acts to the procedure laid down under the Act and to complete the assessment of the petitioner in G. I. No. T.C. 161. v. 1955-56, according to law without any further delay.'The petitioner is a resident of Vijayawada, at which place he has been dealing in radios and electrical goods since July, 1951. In order to appreciate the contentions raised in the their chronological sequence. On the 8th August, 1955, the Income-tax Officer, who was in charge of the Special Survey Circle, at the time, made an inspection of the account books of the petitioner at his shop. On the...
Gudibandla Hanumaiah Vs. Gopathy Mallayya Who Styles Himself as Gunna ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP177
Umamaheswaram, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed for a declaration that the adoption of the defendant by Atchamma, the widow of Ganna Peda Veeraiali was invalid and not binding op the reversioners to the estate of Pongajah, the brother of the plaintiff's grand-father. The truth and validity of the adoption was challenged in the plaint. The widow contended that the adoption was made on 29-12-50 and that a registered adoption deed was duly executed. She further contended that as her husband's brothers, China Veeraiah and Bangaraiah improperly refused to give consent, she obtained the consent of the next remote reversioner Venkaiah, examined as D.W. 2. The Court below held on appreciation of the evidence that the adoption took place on 29-12-1950. It further held that China Veeraiah and Bangaraiah wrongly withheld their consent under Exs. B-2 and B-3. The learned Judge accepted the evidence of the defendant's witnesses that Venkaiah and Balaiah were the brothers of Venka...
Chunduri Venkata Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR87(AP)
Srinivasachari, J. 1. The following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 40, 000 received from M/s. Chisty & Co., under the compromise deed dated 22nd December, 1943, is assessable to tax ?'2. The facts which led to the reference being made by the Appellate Tribunal may be briefly stated :The assessee in this case is a business man carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of oil expellers and was the sole distributor for a certain type of oil expeller manufactured by Chisty & Co., Lahore, for the whole of India. By an agreement dated 15th February, 1938, the assessee was appointed as the sole distributor. Under the terms of the agreement, the principals were not to deal directly or indirectly with any party. The agent agreed to purchase four expellers every month. Under the terms of the agreement this agency was to be in force for a period of six years cert...
Reliance Automobiles Vs. State of Andhra
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-1958
Reported in: [1958]9STC295(AP)
1. This is an application, for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for directing the Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Hyderabad, to forbear from proceeding further against the petitioner in the matter of the assessment for the year 1955-56, on the basis of his notice dated the 10th January, 1958, and to refund the sum of Rs. 65, 763-7-3 collected from him towards the assessment for the years 1954-55 and 1955-56.2. The petitioner avers that he is a local agent for Hindustan Motors and Willys Jeeps, imported from America, which he purchases from dealers at Calcutta and Bombay. It is stated that for the assessment year 1954-55 the respondent collected Rs. 29, 199-3-6 as sales tax on the sale transactions in automobile parts affected by the petitioner. It is the petitioner's contention that the said levy and collection are not authorised by law.3. For the year 1955-56 the petitioner submitted monthly returns and paid a sales tax of Rs. 36, 564-3-9 provisionally. ...
Haji Wali Mohamed Haji Moosa Saya Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-12-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP364; [1959]37ITR538(AP)
Jaganmohan Reddy, J. 1. We had by our order directed the Income Tax Tribunal, at Bombay to state a case on the following questions viz. :1. Whether the notice under Sections 30 (2) and 30 (4) of the Hyderabad Income Tax Act 1357 F. were duly served on the assessee as required by the law.2. Whether the absence of due and proper service of the notices under Sections 30(2) and 30(4) of the said Act and/or the other circumstances of the case constituted sufficient cause for the assessee for not. filing the return or producing the accounts.3. Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment under Section 31 (4) of the said Act is illegal, unjustified and untenable and should be set aside.4. Whether a valid assessment could be made in respect of the income of the year 1356 F. (as in the present case) under the Hyderabad Income-tax Act which came into force on 1st Azur, 1357 F. and whether such an assessment is illegal and is to be set aside.Learned advocate for...
Murali Krishna Rice Mill Vs. Additional Income Tax Officer
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-08-1958
Reported in: [1959]36ITR239(AP)
Satyanarayana Raju, J. 1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Additional Income-tax Officer, Tenali, to forbear from enforcing the order of assessment in G.I.R. No. 338-S/53-54 dated the 9th July, 1956, and from taking steps for collection of tax for the assessment year 1953-54 by reason of his orders dated the 8th of October, 1956, and dated the 26th November, 1956.2. The petitioner was a firm of five partners which carried on business in milling paddy and rice. For the assessment year 1953-54 the firm was assessed to tax of an income of Rs. 36, 206 and it was required to pay a tax of Rs. 9, 561-8-0 on or before the 10th of August, 1956. Against the order of assessment made by the respondent, the petitioner filed appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which are now pending before him. On the 14th of December, 1956, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the reliefs mentioned supra.Sri K. Ranganathachari, learned counsel for the pe...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›