Andhra Pradesh Court September 1960 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.
Pydah Suryanarayana Murty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Prade ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1960
Reported in: [1961]42ITR38(AP)
SESHACHELAPATHI, J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act made to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench. The question of law formulated by the Tribunal for consideration is as follows :'Whether on the facts stated the income in question is not agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1)(a) or (b)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'At the outset we may refer to the comment made by the learned counsel for the Revenue as to the language employed in the question formulated. It is stated by him that the real question in this case is whether the income in question is entitled to exemption from income-tax under section 4(3)(viii) of the Act and the question should have been framed accordingly. It is also suggested that the employment of the expression 'not' before the words 'agricultural income' in the question formulated is inappropriate, as it would seem to cast the burden on the revenue to prove that the disputed amount i...
Singamsetti Ramarao Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP282
Srinivasachari, J.1. The petitioner in this case isthe plaintiff who filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 1.300/-. being the value of goods damaged andshort delivered. The plaintiff alleged that he booked a consignment of 200 bags of gram-dall under Invoice No. 20 dt. 16th July, 1958 from Sirs! on the Northern Railway for delivery at Pendurti on the South Eastern Railway. The Railway Receipt was endorsed by the consignor in favour of the plaintiff at Kakinada for valuable consideration.The petitioner alleges that on account of negligence and misconduct of the Railway administration the consignment was damaged and became unfit for human consumption. On the application made for open delivery the Railway authorities examined and assessed the damage, and the shrot delivery of the stock. The plaintiff therefore sued the Railway, in this case the Union of India, for compensation and damages.The defendant resisted the suit on the ground firstly, that the court had no jurisdiction and secondly...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Abdul Hameed Khan and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-1960
Reported in: 1963CriLJ202
Anantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. Each of these appeals have been filed by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of both the accused concerned in the lower appellate Court. There are two accused in each of these cases. The first accused is Abdul Hameed Khan, He was the Central Excise Inspector alias Range Officer in charge of Puttur Range with head-quarters at Puttur during the relevant period i. e., 1951-52. The second accused in each of these cases is a tobacco merchant residing at Kuchivaripally about two miles from the town of Rajampet, Cuddapah District and held a wholesale licence which is called L-2 licence. The following tabular statement gives the details:Appeal No. in the C. C. No. in the trial Appeal in the lower Name of the 2ndHigh Court Court. appellate Court. accused.Crl. Appeal No. C. C. No. 213/1957. Cr. A. Nos. 13 & 14 of A. Pitchayya. T.509/1958. Crl. A. C. C. No. 214/57. 1958. Crl. A. Nos. 15 & Pitehayya. K.No. 510/58. Crl. A. CO. No. 215/57. C. 16/58. Crl. A....
V.R. Venugopal Vs. Miss T. Pankajam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP266; 1961CriLJ804
ORDERAnantanarayana Ayyar, J. 1. Miss T. Pankajam filed a private complaint against one V. R. Venugopal charging the latter with having committed offence under Section 417I. P. C. in the court of the Vlth City Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate took the case on file under Section 417 I. P. C. The Advocate for [the accused in the trial court raised certain preliminary objection about jurisdiction and contended that the accused should be discharged straightway. The learned trial Magistrate considered the pre-liminary objection and passed an order dated 13-1-1960 holding that her court had jurisdiction to try the case and that there was no need to discharge the accused at that stage. The accused filed Criminal R. p. No. 53 of 1960 against that order in the Court of the Chief City Magistrate-Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The latter dismissed the revision petition, observing as follows: 'It is only the High Court that can interfere with the orders passed regarding jurisdi...
Raisaheb Chedra Durvasulu Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC158(AP)
Kumarayya, J. 1. These are two petitions for issue of writs of certiorari for quashing the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal made in T. A. Nos. 28 and 36 of 1956.2. The petitioner in both the cases is a dealer within the meaning of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950. By separate orders for the assessment years 1952-53 and 1953-54 he was assessed to tax on a turnover which inter alia included the turnover representing the .sales of handloom cotton lungies, roomals, sarees, and sheilas. The petitioner challenged these assessment orders on the ground that handloom cloth could not be brought to tax firstly, because, that having been declared as an essential commodity by the Essential Gooods (Declaration and Regulation of Tax on Sale or Purchase) Act (Act LII of 1952) any such tax could be imposed only with the assent of the President. Secondly, the exemption from tax which enures for the benefit of dealers being granted through Notification No. 101 dated 11th November, 1950...
Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ33AP
ORDERBasi Reddi, J.1. The petitioner is the Sirpur Paper Mills, Ltd. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the order dated 1 April 1960 passed by the industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 27 of 1959 in industrial Dispute No. 1 of 1959.2. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, by their order dated 4 April 1959, referred for adjudication to the industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, an industrial dispute existing between the workmen and employers of the Sirpur Paper Mills, Ltd., in respect of the matters specified in the annexure to the said order. The annexure ran as follows:How far the following demands are tenable?:(1) Revision of grades.(2) Revision of dearness allowance.(3) Abolition of contract system of labour and absorption of the present workers on permanent basis.Pur...
Mandela Narasimhaswami and ors. Vs. Mamidi China Venkata Sivayya and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP279
Srinivasachari, J.1. This case has been referred to a Bench by our learned brother Bhimasankaram, J., because he felt that the case raised an important and difficult question of law of limitation. One Mamidi China Venkata Siviah purchased the undivided share to which defendants 2 to 5 in the suit were entitled at a court-auction held on 2Ist December, 1936, in execution of a decree passed by the Court of Small Causes. This sale was confirmed on 23rd February, 19S7. Later on, on 5-3-1939 the purchaser Sivaiah sold the right he had purchased to one Prakasalingam and this purchaser, it is stated, obtained symbolic delivery of the undivided share on 6-11-1939. But it happened that subsequently the same Sivaiah obtained a reconveyance of the right from Prakasalingam on 11-4-1945.2. Sivaiah brought the present suit on 16th October, 1951, for partition and separate possession of the 4/5th share in the joint family properties. The suit was filed against the other coparceners and alienees from ...
B. Srikantiah Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyde ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP318; [1961]41ITR518(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C. J.1. The following question is referred for the opinion of this court under Section 60(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench:'Whether the assessee is entitled to claim initial deprecation under Section 10(2) (vi) and additional depreciation under Section 10(2) (vi-a) on the sum of Rs. 17,415/-?'2. This point, though a short one, is by no means a simple one. Before we consider the various aspects of the controversy, it is necessary to state the facts which lie in a very short compass. The assessee runs a bus service. In the account year, he spent Rs. 21,855/- in replacing the petrol engines of the buses by diesel engines, as the former were worn out beyond repair. The cost of the two new diesel engines was Rs. 17,415/-. In computing the income from the bus-service the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 21,855/-under Sections 10(2)(v), 10(2)(xv), 10(2)(vi), and 10 (X2)(vi-a), the last claim bearing on the initial and addi...
Peddi Siviah Vs. C. Ramanath, a Firm Carrying on Business at General B ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP327
Krishna Rao, J. 1. These appeals arise out of an order dated 20-7-1956 made by the Court of the Subordinate Judge Secunderabad directing attachment of the movables of the plaintiff-judgment-debtor and his surety in execution. C. M. S. A. No. 100 of 1956 is brought by the plaintiff-judgment-debtor from the appellate order of the Court of the District Judge of Secunderabad confirming as against him the aforesaid order of the Subordinate Judge. C. M. S. A. No. 59 of 1957 is brought by the defendant-decree-holder against the appellate order of the Court of the District Judge, Secunderabad allowing the appeal of the plaintiff's surety from the same order of the Subordinate Judge. 2. A preliminary objection is taken in C. M. S. A. No. 100 of 1956 by the defendant-decree-holder that no appeal lay to the Court of the District Judge. This point was also raised by him as a ground of attack against the order of the District Judge in C. M. S. A. No. 59 of 1957 against the order of the District Jud...
Vankadam Lakshminarayana Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Prades ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1960
Reported in: [1961]43ITR526(AP)
The judgment of the court was deliverd byCHANDRA REDDY C.J. - This reference raises questions of interest and importance and is bare of authority. It involves the following questions :'1. Whether by reason of the sale of motor-car for Rs. 4,025 the assessee sustained any loss thereon for the purpose of making the allowance spoken of in section 10(2)(vii) and2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the said loss is Rs. 78 or Rs. 708 or another sum ?'The circumstances leading to this reference may be briefly stated. The assessee family is a dealer in tobacco. A new Vauxhall motor-car was purchased by this family on December 12, 1952 for Rs. 13,144 for the use partially of the family business and partially for non-business purpose, such as personal requirements of the members of the family. The accounts of the business were made up for the year ending with March 31 of every year. For the assessment years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56 the Income-tax Officer made...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »