Andhra Pradesh Court November 1963 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.
K. Kannaiah Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-06-1963
Reported in: [1964]15STC689(AP)
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The proper interpretation of Section 41 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (VI of 1957) is involved in this enquiry.2. This writ petition relates to the assessment year 1956-57. The petitioner, who is a dealer in tobacco, was assessed to tax by the proper Commercial Tax Officer by an order dated 27th March, 1959, and a sum of Rs. 9,962-2-5 was demanded as the tax due and payable by him. It is to quash this order of assessment that the writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution contending that it was beyond the competence of the department to make an assessment in respect of purchases made during the period of the operation of the Madras General Sales Tax Act after it had ceased to be in force.3. Before we deal with the controversy relating to the construction of Section 41, we have to read that section. It postulates :(1) The Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Madras Act IX of 1939), the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950 (...
Lingala Venkata Ranga Reddy Vs. Agricultural Income-tax and Commercial ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-1963
Reported in: [1965]55ITR528(AP)
[MANOHAR PERSHAD J., before whom the petition came on four hearing, made the following order :]In these two writ petitions, the point for consideration is whether the words 'liability already incurred' occurring in section 41 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act include the liability to pay. The contention of Sri Choudary, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in W. P. No. 912 of 1961 is that the expression 'liability already incurred' used in the above section does not include the liability to pay. My attention is drawn to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chatturam Horilram Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. On behalf of the order side, my attention is drawn to the case of Budhan Khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh and a Bench decision of this court in the case of Yellappa Nandyal v. State of Andhra Pradesh and it is contended that in the above cases this court has not only considered the scope of section 41 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, but has held...
Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition, Anantapur Vs. K. Kodandaram ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-1963
Reported in: AIR1965AP25
1. This is an appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer against the award made by the Court of the Subordinate Judge Anantapur enhancing the compensation upon a reference by the appellant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), hereinafter called the Act. The only point urged by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the appellant at the hearing is that the reference was incompetent as there was no application made under Section 18 of the Act by the respondent, Kodandaramacharlu, and therefore the lower Court ought to have declined to interfere with the award made by the appellant. (2) The facts necessary to appreciate the contention are briefly these: On 22-12-1958, the appellant made his award fixing the market value of the wet lands acquired at Rs. 450/- per acre and of the dry lands acquired at Rs. 50/- per acre. On 29-12-1958, he made the reference to the lower Court under Section 18 of the Act. The reason stated for the reference was that 'in response to award...
The Chittoor Motor Transport Private Ltd., Chittoor Vs. the Commission ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP390
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The question to be answered by us in this reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act is formulated in these words :'Whether the new diesel engines purchased and fitted to the old buses during the account year constituted 'plant or machinery' within the meaning of Section 10 (2) (vi-a) and Section 10 (2) (vi-b) so as to be entitled for additional depreciation allowance and development rebate respectively under those provisions.'2. Before we deal with the question of law posed in this reference, it is useful to set out the facts giving rise to this reference as briefly as possible.3. The assessee is a private limited Company carrying on the business of motor transport. The relevant assessment year is 1957-58, the accounting year being 1.4-1956 to 31-3-1957. In the year of account, the assessee replaced the petrol engines by diesel engines in four of the vehicles and claimed inter alia additional depreciation allowance and development rebate in respe...
His Highness Prince Azam Jah Vs. Expenditure Tax Officer Hyderabad.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-1963
Reported in: [1965]55ITR230(AP)
These three with petitions involve the interpretation of section 4(ii) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957 (29 of 1957), as amended by the Finance Act of 1959, hereinafter called the Act, and its validity, namely, whether it offends articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. Apart from this, the jurisdiction of the Expenditure-tax Officer to reopen the assessments already made has been questioned.In order to understand the points urged before me, it is necessary to state briefly a few facts :The petitioner, Highness Prince Azam Jah, the eldest son of Nizam, filed expenditure-tax returns under the Act for the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-60 and 1961-62 and on the basis of the returns, the respondent - Expenditure-tax Officer, Circle No. II - completed the tax assessments on March 27, 1961, December 22, 1961 and January 25, 1962, assessing him to a taxable expenditure of Rs. 2,34,864, Rs. 1,66,687, and Rs. 2,30,384 respectively for these three years. The tax demands were also paid in ful...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›