Andhra Pradesh Court December 1961 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.
Hazarilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR516(AP)
KUMARAYYA J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, has under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act referred the following question for determination :'Whether the finding that the consideration of Rs. 30,000 was found by the assessee could be sustained on the material on record ?'The reference relates to the assessment year 1953-54, the relevant accounting period being the year ending October 18, 1952. The assessee is an individual. According to the Income-tax Officer, he had purchased a house for Rs. 30,000 from the Abdul Wahab on August 16, 1952, though in the name of his wife, Sarlabai. He does not admit the truth of this contention. His case is that his wife, Sarlabai, is the purchaser who having sold 200 tolas of her gold ornaments and made the said purchase with the help of the sale proceeds of the ornaments plus Rs. 3,000 which she had already in cash. When called upon to substantiate the sale, the assessee produced patties for sale of bullion, called his el...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad Vs. Alapati Venkataramiah.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR623(AP)
JAGANMOHAN REDDY J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, in pursuance to our orders under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, referred the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 79,494 is assessable as capital gains in the assessment year 1948-49 ?'The assessee also seems to have made an application in I.T.A. No. 5350/1954-55 5350/1954-55 and the Tribunal referred the very same question as arising therefrom. Hence the statement of case in R.C. No. 20/1960 is considered sufficient for the other reference (R.C. No. 21/1960) also.The assessee who was the proprietor of Mohan Tile Works, Tenali, was engaged in the manufacture of tiles and bricks. He had for that purpose plant and machinery and factory buildings and he was one of the promoters of a limited company known as the Mohan Industries Ltd., Tenali (hereinafter called the company), and in bringing into existence that company the assessee entered into an agreement date...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›