Andhra Pradesh Court January 1962 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.
Thummu Koti Nagaiah Vs. D. Sambaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-31-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP136
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, directing the detention of the appellant in a Civil Prison for period of six months.2. The facts material for the purpose of this enquiry may be briefly narrated. The first respondent instituted O.S. No. 48 of 1956, against the appellant in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Guntur for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,664/- on the foot of a promissory note executed by the appellant in his favour. Along with the suit, he filed I. A. No. 990 of 1956 for attachment before judgment of the moveables including the tobacco lying in the godown of the appellant and belonging to him. When the petition came up for hearing on 25-4-1956, the first defendant appeared through a lawyer and requested time till 26-4-1956. Thereupon, the Court passed the following order :'Notice. Counter and disposal. The defendant not to alienate any of the moveables in the meanwhile.'3. Notwithstanding, this order of injunction, the appel...
Arisetty Butchanna Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-29-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR703(AP)
UMAMAHESWARAM J. - Both these references are made under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the assessee, who is the same in both the cases. A notice under rule 6 of the Madras High Court Rules was issued to the assessee. The assessee is absent at the hearing of the case today. The question that arises for decision is whether under the provisions of section 66(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act it is mandatory for his court to answer the reference even though the assessee at whose instance the reference was made is absent at the hearing.Section 66(5) of the Income-tax Act is in the following terms :'The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions of law raised thereby and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded......'We are inclined to hold that the terms of section 66(5) are not mandatory and that the High Court is not bound to answer the reference irrespective of the fact whether th...
K. S. Abdul Sattar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-22-1962
Reported in: [1963]47ITR621(AP)
UMAMAHESWARAM J. - The question that is referred to for our decision under section 66(1)of the Indian Income-tax Act is as follows :'Whether, once proceedings under section 34(1) (b) have been validity started, income that is known to have escaped assessment at the time of the issue of the notice alone can be assessed or any and all income that has escaped assessment ?'To appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts. The assessee submitted a return for the year 1953-54 in which he stated that he had received a sum of Rs. 4,000 by way of interest. He made a note in his return that the receipt was of a casual and non-recurring nature not arising from business, profession or vocation. His statement was accepted by the Income-tax Officer. On July 31, 1957, the Income-tax Officer made a note in his order as follows :'The assessee was in receipt of some interest income. This was declared in part G of the return. Exemption was claimed on the ground o...
T.V. Subba Rao Vs. T. Koteswara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP37
ORDERSanjeeva Row Nayudu, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the District Collector of Kurnool, dated 18th January 1959, in R.S.A. 1 of 1958 reversing the judgment and order of the Revenue Divisional Officer's Court, Markapur, in R.P. No. 1 of 1958 on the file of the said Court.2. This revision is preferred under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts leading up to this revision may be briefly noticed. The petitioner herein is the defendant in Revenue Suit No. 5 of 1954 in the Court of the Collector (Revenue Divisional Officer) Markapur, and the respondent is the plaintiff in that suit. That suit was brought under Section 13(1) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (Act III of 1895) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) wherein he claimed his right to the office of Karnam of Papinepalli, Kambham Taluk, Kurnool District. After the appearance of the defendant, the suit was posted for hearing to 1-12-1957. As that date was not conve...
Hari Hari Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Hyderabad.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-19-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR791(AP)
UMAMAHESWARAM J. - This is a reference under section 26 of the Hyderabad Agricultural Income-tax Act. The two questions that are referred to for our decision are as follows :'1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case it is correct in law to hold that the income derived by the wife and minor sons from the lands given to their shares could be included in the income of the petitioner 2. Whether on a true construction of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, partition between the members of the Hindu joint family is transfer so as to attract the applicability of section 9 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act to the instant case ?'The relevant facts are as hereunder :The assessee is the father. He entered into two partition deeds with his minor sons represented by his wife. At the time when the first document of partition was executed, viz., on June 19, 1952, he had only two minor sons. Under that document the father took Ac. 94-11 Guntas of dry land and Ac. 44-13 Guntas...
Raghunandhan Reddy Vs. State of Hyderabad Through Secy. of Government, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP110
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the Judgment and decree of the lower Court dismissing the suit filed by him for a perpetual injunction against the Government and for the return of the deposit amount of Rupees 2,949/- as earnest money.2. It appears that the Government in the Excise Department notified the sale by auction of the leasehold rights for 1364 F. of country liquor shops at Akbarjah Bazaar, Malakunta and Sultan Bazar localities in Hyderabad City to be held on 18-8-1954. The toddy or sendhi auctions for the same year were fixed for 23-8-1954. On the date fixed for the auction of country liquor, objections were raised by the intending bidders before the Deputy Excise Commissioner who was the auctioning Officer authorised under the rules that the auction notifications for the country liquor do not specify whether the Sabucha tax is leviable on the toddy brought into the city or not. It may be stated that Sabucha tax is a tax of Rs. 7-8-0 imp...
Ramakrishna Rice Working Company, Bhattiprolu Vs. the State of Andhra ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP238; [1962]13STC755(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes revising that of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Guntur. 2. The appellant, Messrs. Ramakrishna Rice Working Company, Bhattiprole, returned a net turnover of Rs. 1,12,029-10-0, claiming exemption on a turnover of Rs. 2,65,382-5-6 representing the sales of rice for consumption outside the State. The Commercial Tax Officer disallowed the claim of the appellant for exemption in regard to a turnover of Rs. 2,11,363-8-9 holding that this amount was exigible to tax under Rule 13 of the Turnover and Assessment Rules. 3. Dissatisfied with this order of the Commercial Tax Officer, the appellant went up in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. This authority ruled that the transactions in question fell under Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution and as such the exemption claimed in regard thereto should be allowed, in this view of the matter, he directed ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Krishna Reddy.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR784(AP)
UMAMAHESWARAM J. - The question that is referred to for our decision under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act is a follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in concluding that only half the income from the Abkari contracts was liable to be assessed in the assessees hands, having regard to the provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the Hyderabad Abkari Act that a partnership in Abkari contracts without the prior approval of the Talukdar is void ?'For the purpose of dealing with the above question it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts. The assessee, G. Krishna Reddy, and D.D. Italia carried on Abkari business under the name and style of 'M/s. G. Krishna Reddy and Din Sha-ji'. The licence for carrying on the Abkari business under the Hyderabad Abkari Act was issued by the Government only in the name of G. Krishna Reddy. Without obtaining the prior approval of the Talukdar as required by section 14 of the Hyderaba...
A. Vs. Pratap Reddi V. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR898(AP)
UMAMAHESWARAM J. - Two questions are referred for decision under section 26 of the Hyderabad Agricultural Income-tax Act (13 of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Those questions are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Deputy Commissioner is justified in holding that the income derived by the minor sons from the lands given to their shares is to be included in the income of his father; and(2) Whether on a true construction of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, the Deputy Commissioner is right in holding that partition is transfer so as to attract the applicability of section 9 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act to the instant case ?'The relevant facts are as follows : The assessee and his sons entered into a valid partition on 1st October, 1952. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer and the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax came to the conclusion that the partition entered into between the father and the sons...
Abdul Rahim and anr. Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1964AP407; (1962)IILLJ639AP
Satyanarayana Raju, J. 1. These two petitions, filed under Article 228 of the Constitution of India, raise identical question for decision, and it will be convenient to dispose of them in a common judgment.2. The petitioner in the former of the petitions was a mechanic in the service of the Road Transport Department of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad ; and the petitioner in the other petition was a conductor. The respondent in both the petitions is the Chief Executive Officer of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of convenience, as 'the Corporation'),3. For a better appreciation of the contentions raised before us, it will be convenient to set out in brief outline the antecedent history of the Corporation. Originally, the Road Transport Department of the erstwhile Hyderabad State was providing road transport services in the territories which formed part of that State. The Department was there functioning as a State Transport Unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »