Andhra Pradesh Court December 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.
Badri Narayan Balakishan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Prades ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-1963
Reported in: [1965]57ITR752(AP)
JAGANMOHAN REDDY J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, namely, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the collection as and by way of sales tax was a trading receipts of the assessee liable to tax.It appears that the assessee is a firm carrying on business as commission agent in rice. For the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1958-59, it collected a sum of Rs. 5,702 towards sales tax and in that relevant to the assessment year 1959-60, it collected a sum of Rs. 21,316. The assessee made these collections on sales made outside the State apprehending that it may be made liable for payment of such sales tax on the imposition of central sales tax on inter-State trading from July 1, 1957. These collection so made from the customers were credited to a separate account called the 'deposit account' and were not treated as part of the sale proceeds. The invoices for sales also ...
In Re: Kalluri Bheemalingam and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-1963
Reported in: [1967]19STC116(AP)
ORDERP. Satyanarayana Raju, Offg. C.J.1. In these matters appeals are sought to be filed by the assessees, who have been assessed to sales tax, under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the orders of the Board of Revenue, whereby the revisions filed by them under Section 20(1) of the Act have been rejected as not maintainable. The office has raised an objection to their maintainability based on the terms of Section 23 of the Act.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the assessees that the orders of the Board of Revenue rejecting the revision petitions filed by the assessees fall within the ambit of Section 23 of the Act and appeals against such orders would lie to the High Court.3. The argument of the learned counsel may be summarised thus :- The revision to the Board of Revenue may be irregular or incompetent but still as the Board of Revenue exercises quasi-judicial functions its orders must ex jade indic...
M.V. Narasamma Vs. M. Venkataratnam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1965AP12
ORDER(1) This is an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution questioning the legality of the order passed by the Asst. Settlement Officer, Vizianagaram given on 8-3-1962. The necessary facts are that the respondent, filed an application under Sec. 56 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act seeking a declaration as to who is the lawful ryot. In those proceedings the petitioner raised an objection that in an earlier proceeding under Ss. 11 and 15 of the Madras Estates Abolition Act, it was found by the Settlement Officer and the Appellate authority that the respondent is a sub-tenant and that the petitioner is a tenant, granting ryotwari patta to the petitioner . That judgment being final and conclusive between the parties, it is not open to the respondent to reagitate that question in a proceeding initiated under Sec. 56 of the Abolition Act. She separately filed an application and requested the Asst. Settlement Officer to treat this question as a prelim...
E.H. Hamberger, Diocesan Treasurer and Power of Attorney Holder of the ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-10-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP504
Jaganmohan Reddy, J. 1. This appeal and the cross-objections are against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Masulipatnam in O. P. No, 18 of 1957 awarding Rs. 90,000/- as compensation together with 15% solatium for lands and buildings known as the Lady Ampthil Government Secondary School for Women. Masulipatnam, acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter called 'the Act') pursuant to the notification published on 7-10-1955 under Section. 4(1) of the Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar (Masulipatnam) awarded compensation on the basis of capitalisation of rent of Rs. 200/- per month, fixing the compensation at Rs. 76,250/- including solatium. Inasmuch as the appellant was aggrieved, he asked for a reference under Section 18 of the Act claiming Rs. 1,65,678/- as the market value of the land to which the appellant is entitled.2. The appellant is the Church Mission Society represented by E. H. Hambcrger, Dioceasan Treasurer and Power of attorney-holder. The ...
Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Guntur Vs. Pa ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP510
Narasimham, J. 1. These appeals relate to the compensation payable for the acquisition of certain sites in Guntur town Municipality for the extension of the Government Head-Quarters Hospital, Guntur. There was a notification for the acquisition of these sites under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 22-4-1953. The subject-matter of these appeals, are 3 sites bearing Town Survey No. 317/1 admeasuring 1136 sq. yards, 1124 sq. yards and 1253 sq. yards. One Pamulapati Venkata Krishnayya Chowdary, Guntur, was the owner of the first site and his son, Pamulapati Lalithendranath Chowdari is the owner of the other two sites. One Khambhampati Gopalakrislinayya was interested in the site admeasuring 1253 sq. yarcis, as a lessee who was carrying on a business in motors under the name and style of 'Bedford Co.' The said Gopalakrishnayya had obtained a lease of the site for 20 years from 1-1-1948 to 31-12-1968. The rental for the first 10 ysars was Rs. 150/- per month and for the later 10 y...
In Re: Javvaji Uthanna
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP368; 1964CriLJ133
Kumarayya, J. 1. The short point that falls for determination in these four revision petitions is whether having regard to the provisions of Section 479A(1), Criminal Procedure Code, it was obligatory on the Additional Sessions Judge to give the petitioners opportunity of being heard after recording a Ending contemplated by that Sub-clause and before making a complaint in writing for the offence of perjury under section 193, I. P. C.2. The petitioners were called as eye-witnesses (P. Ws. 1 to 4) in Sessions Case No. 19/62 in relation to the stab injuries inflicted on P. W. 1 and E. Venkataramana as a result of which Venkataiamana died on 2-11-1961. These witnesses before the committal Court as also before the Magistrate under Section 164, Cri. P. C., deposed that they had actually witnessed the stabbing of the deceased, Venkataramana, by A.1 and gave all other details of the occurrence. They deposed to the fact that P. W. 1 was stabbed by A.2 and gave all further details in relation th...
Chalavada Venkata Subbarao and Co. and anr. Vs. Grandhi Sree Ramulu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1963
Reported in: AIR1965AP16
Satyanarayana Raju, Offg. C.J.(1) The question for decision is whether the following order made by our learned brother Gopalrao Ekbote J., is a 'judgment' within the meaning of Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent : -'Post Appeal No. 21 of 1960 along with Appeal No. 188 of 1959 before a Bench'. Clause 15 reads as follows : - 'And We do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Madras from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of S. 107 of the Government of India Act or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction ) of one Judge of the said High Court or one judge of any Division Court, ...
K. Ramulu and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Hyderabad Di ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-02-1963
Reported in: AIR1965AP20
ORDER(1) This Writ Petition is a sequel to an akbari auction held on 26-8-1963 in respect of the privilege to sell 'sendhi' in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad for the year 1963-64. The petitioners are abkari contractors who have been doing business in partnership in Hyderabad and Secunderabad for over ten years, but they were prevented from taking part in the said auction on the ground that they were defaulters and large abkari arrears were due from them to the Government. The 1st respondent in this Writ Petition is the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, who was the auctioning authority; the 2nd respondent is the Commissioner of Excise (Member, Board of Revenue); the 3rd respondent is the Government of Andhra Pradesh; and respondents 4 to 30 were the successful bidders at that auction, in whose favour the bids were knocked down and leases have been granted. (2) The sum and substance of the case of the petitioners is that they had been prevented from bidding at that auction by the ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›