Andhra Pradesh Court September 1963 Judgments
Jaldu Manikyala Row and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1963
Reported in: [1964]54ITR409(AP)
BASI REDDY J. - This reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, comes before us after the submission of a finding on a certain point by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in pursuance of an order of remand made by the Supreme Court, with direction that this court should deal with the matter de novo. The question that was referred to this court by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal was :'Whether the sum of Rs. 75,040 is a receipt not from business but only of a casual and non-recurring nature exempt under section 4(3)(vii) of the Income-tax Act ?'Before answering this question, in the light of the finding submitted by the Appellate Tribunal, it is necessary, for a proper understanding of that finding, to set out he history of this case through its various stages, noticing the stand taken by the assessee from time of time. The assessee (Jaldu Manikyala Row) was a merchant doing business in timber, tiles, furniture, ironware and hardware in partnership with others and...
Tag this Judgment!Noone China Seshaiah Vs. Income-tax Officer, Nellore, and Others.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-1963
Reported in: [1965]55ITR460(AP)
In this writ petition, two points are urged. Firstly, that the petitioner cannot be made liable for the entire tax liability of the joint family and secondly, that unless a notice of demand for under section 25A(2) apportioning the tax liability is given to him, his properties cannot be attached to recover the liability of the joint family and no proceedings can be taken to collect the tax from him. The petitioner is one of the members of the joint family which was assessed for the years 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52. There was an application under section 25A for a declaration that the joint family was divided as from March 31, 1951. Though the assessments for these years were made earlier on different dates, the order under section 25A was only passed on January 5, 1957, holding that there was a division of the joint family for the purpose of section 25A from March 31, 1951. At the time when this order was made, the Income-tax Officer omitted to make a demand notice under sec...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Yousoof Sahib Vs. the Additional Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-18-1963
Reported in: [1967]19STC210(AP)
ORDERGopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in pulses, paddy, rice etc., and carries on his business at Vijayawada. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada, visited the petitioner's shop on 4th July, 1957. He found in his inspection two bills evidencing the purchase and sale transactions. The first related to Rs. 4,496.75 nP. of 2nd July, 1957, and the second was for an amount of Rs. 7,697.36 nP. for 3rd July, 1957.2. The petitioner, however, in his monthly return of August included the said two transactions and submitted the return. He was taxed on that return which included the above-said two transactions. The tax seems to have been paid, After a lapse of considerable time on 16th February, 1959, a notice under Section 14(4), Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, was served on the petitioner alleging that a portion of his turnover has escaped the assessment, the escaped assessment being Rs. 2,79,203.94 nP. This amount was arrived at by adding 50 per cent, of the t...
Tag this Judgment!Chittoor Transport Co. (Pr.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Chittoor
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-1963
Reported in: AIR1965AP196; [1965]55ITR159(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J. (1) The interpretation and the validity of Sec. 10 (2) (vi) (b) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, (XI) of 1922) are involved in this Writ Petition . (2) This is how the two questions arise in this enquiry. One C. P. Sarathy and his two sons owned all the shares in a private limited company carrying on business in Motor Transport Co. (Private) Ltd. , Chittoor by its Director, C. P. Doraiswamy. This company obtained a development rebate for the assessment year 1959-1960 in a sum of Rs. 48,600/-. In the course of that year, the three share-holders entered into a partnership on 27-5-1959 to take over certain assets of the company. Recognition to this partnership was accorded by the Department under Sec. 26-A of the Indian Income-Tax Act. Pursuant to the terms of the partnership, some of the transport vehicles in regard to which rebate was granted were transferred by the company to the partnership for a consideration of Rs. 2,52,000/-. This led the proper Income-Tax Officer ...
Tag this Judgment!Tekumalla Rama Rao Vs. Durga Suryanarayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP256
Narasimham, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein, the Second Appeal arises out of a suit filed for enforcing the transfer of a route permit of a Bus (A.D.S. 471) plying on the route line from Vizianagaram to Chodavaram, pursuant to an agreement in that behalf entered into by the plaintiff and the first defendant on 3-12-1955. The suit was dismissed by the Courts below and that is how the appeal arises. The following are the undisputed, facts which require to be noticed here to appreciate the point Involved in this case, viz., the enforceability of such an agreement to transfer a route permit in respect of the Bus. (A.D.S. 471).2. The plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) and the first defendant (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) were partners In the business of running stage' carriage under the name and style of 'Sri Sad guru Bus Service'. The respondent held the route permit. A.D.S. 471 was one of the buses forming partnership property. While so, a credi...
Tag this Judgment!Mirza Majaf Ali Khan and anr. Vs. the Assistant Controller of Estate D ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP332; [1964]52ITR16(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. These two appeals are from the common judgment of our learned brother, Jaganmohan Reddy J., in W. P Nos. 836 and 837 of 1960 respectively, the former for the issue of a writ of prohibition and the latter for a writ of certiorari, both aimed against a notice by the Asst. Controller of Estate Duty to the appellants for payment of estate duly on the estate of the late Nawab Salar Jung (Salar Jung III) (hereinafter referred to as the late Nawab), which devolved on the appellants. 2. A brief resume of the facts will be helpful in understanding the respective contentions of the parties in this enquiry. Salar Jung III died on 2-3-1949 issueless, leaving behind him a vast estate consisting of valuable moveables and immoveable properties. Immediately, numerous persons began to assert their rights in these properties, claiming to be his heirs. Having regard to the scramble for succession, the Military Governor of Hyderabad, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by H...
Tag this Judgment!Tirumareddi Rajarao and ors. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-10-1963
Reported in: AIR1965AP388
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The question to be answered by the Full Bench is formulated in these words :'Whether the consistent view as held in Venkatragayya Appa Row v. Sriramulu 17 Ind Cas 593 (Mad); Baiznath Lala v. Ramadoss, ILR 39 Mad 62 : (AIR 1915 Mad 405) and Alagappa Chettiar, 1937 Mad WITNESS 465 (2) that only the pendency of the infructuous revision should be excluded under S. 14(1) of the Limitation Act, requires re-consideration in view of Rule 41-A (2) of the Appellate Side Rules prescribing the period of 90 days for civil revision petitions or for any other reason, so as to exclude the entire period from the date of the adverse order to the date of disposal of the infructuous revision under the said provision of the Limitation Act.'(2) For an appraisal of the issue that presents itself before us, it is necessary to recall a few material facts. The Rajah of Vizianagaram obtained a decree in S. C. S. No. 1098 of 1938 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Vizakhapatnam, aga...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Salem
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP271
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This matter has been directed to be placed before a Bench by our learned brother, Satyanarayana Raju, J., having regard to the conflict of two decisions, one of Munikanniah, J, and another of Basi Reddy, J.2. The learned advocate for tha petitioner cites a decision of Munikanniah, J. in Mahboob Bi v. Alvala Lachmiah, 1962-2 Andh WR 148, In support of his contention that notwithstanding Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', a revision can be filed to the High Court. There is a decision of our learned brother Basi Reddy, J. in S. R. No. 33312 of .1962 (AP) in which a question had arisen whether a revision was maintainable under Section 22 of the Act. in that case the petitioner had filed a petition for eviction of his tenant. That petition was dismissed by the Rent 'Controller, Kakinada, and without filing an appeal under Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act, he filed a rev...
Tag this Judgment!Ambati Pitchamma Vs. Jaladamis Veeraswami Naidu Alias Mugieh (Died) Ja ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP272
Harasimham, J. 1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Umamaheswaram, J. D/- 23rd February 1961 in A. S. No. 365 of 1956 by which he affirmed the judgment of the trial Court.2. The suit was for setting aside the alienations or joint family properties and for partition; and recovery or possession of the Plaintiffs half-share therein. The Plaintiff in the suit were two of the sons of one Seshappa Naidu, who died in 1932. The first defendant is a brother and the second defendant was the widow of another brother, one Ramasubba Naidu, who died in 1948. The alienees of the Joint family properties were imp leaded as defendants 3 to 14. Defendants 15 to 22 were creditors who had obtained decrees. Defendants 23 to 25 were the legal representatives of some of the deceased creditors, me alienees resisted the suit taking various pleas and contending that the alienations bind the family. During the pendency of the suit, the second plaintiff died.3. The lea...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chidra Lingamurthy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP248; 1964CriLJ634
Ananthanarayana Ayyar, J. 1. In P. R. C. No. 2 of 1962, the learned Principal'Munsif-Magistrate of Warangal passed an order committing the three accused therein to the Sessions Court, Warangal for trial after framing charges under Section 467 I. P. C. against A-1 to A-3 and under Sections 209, 471 and 193 I. P. C. against A-1. The three accused filed this revision petition for quashing the order of committal. 2. In the order of committal, it is mentioned that the committal is under Section 207A(7) Cr. P. C. and accordingly, the revision petition mentions that it is filed under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. But, in fact, the committal inquiry was held on the basis of a complaint filed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Warangal and not on a police report. Therefore, in view of Section 207 Cr. P. C. the procedure which had , to be followed was that indicated in Section 207(b) and Section 208 Cr. P. C. onwards. The committal must be deemed to have been made under Section 213 Cr. P. C. and not un...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »