Andhra Pradesh Court September 1966 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.
Kasamsetty Radhakrishaniah Chetty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax A. P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR522(AP)
VENKATESAM J. - The question referred to this court under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in the disallowing the sum of Rs. 9,000 claimed by the assessee as a bad debt ?'Though the question referred was only one, it really consists of two parts, namely, (1) where a partner finances a firm of which he is a partner, it could not be treated as a money-lending business and (2) whether in the circumstances of the case, there was money-lending business, and the sum of Rs. 9,000 is a bad debt. The facts relevant for the determination of this question may shortly be stated.The assessee is an individual and the relevant accounting period is 1956-57 ending on December 31, 1956. His sources of income were property, shares in two registered firms, and other sources. The assessee maintained a set of account books in which he recorded the amounts which he borrowed from others for...
D. Yasodamma, Gudur Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-15-1966
Reported in: [1968]70ITR515(AP)
JAGANMOHAN REDDY C.J. - We had directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case on the following question namely 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any material for holding that the sum of Rs. 8,050 was an undisclosed profit and assessable as such in the year of account ?' The facts necessary for the determination of this question may be stated as follows :The assessee is the proprietaries of the Eurasian Exports and Imports, Gudur, and Ramana Vilas Mica Mines, Degapudi. The assessment is for the year 1951-52, for which the accounting year ended on July 31, 1950. In the return field by her, she showed a loss of Rs. 7,273 and after making certain adjustments the registered accountant of the assessee admitted a loss of Rs. 9,591. The Income-tax Officer noticed that a sum of Rs. 8,250 was brought in cash by the assessee in her personal account on various dates from August 17, 1949, to January 21, 1950, and as such he added Rs. 8,050 but...
Venkata Subbarayudu Chetty Vs. Tanguturu Venkatiah Shresti and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP107; 1968CriLJ440
1. The complainant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 1965 against the acquittal of A-2, A-4, A-5. A-6, and A-8 by the Judicial Ilnd Class Magistrate, Tirupati, in C. C. No. 91 of 1963 on his file. Crl. R. C. No. 470 of 1964 is preferred by A-l and A-3 against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Chittoor. confirming the convictions and sentences awarded to them by the said Magistrate in the same case. 2. Mr. Chenna Kesava Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that the prosecution has not established the factum of valid marriage, and that the ceremonies required to be gone through by the couple have not been gone through, and, therefore, there is no solemnization of marriage between A-l and A-2 and hence the petitioners (A-l and A-3) are entitled to an acquittal 3. A-l la the bridegroom and A-2 (since acquitted) is the bride. A-3 is the father of the bride. P. W. 5 is the priest who officiated at the marriage of A-l and A-2. He deposed ...
A. Hanumantha Rao Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Andhra Pradesh.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1966
Reported in: [1967]65ITR586(AP)
JAGANMOHAN REDDY C.J. - The Income-tax Tribunal has referred the following questions under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether the assessee could impress the character of a joint family property on the property separately owned by him only for the benefit of himself and his sons constituting a separate Hindu undivided family to the exclusion of his father notwithstanding the fact that the Hindu undivided family consisted of the assessee, his father and his sons ?(2) Whether there was any material before the Tribunal to reject the assessees version that he impressed his individual property with the character of joint family property from 1949 onwards ?'The relevant assessment year in respect of which the above questions arise is 1957-58 for which the valuation date is March 31, 1957. The assessee is one of the members of a coparcenary consisting of his father, A. Rajaiah, himself and his two sons, the other son, Inder Prakash Rao, havin...
In Re: Masgi Bitchanna and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1969AP54; 1969CriLJ156
ORDER1. These two revision petitions arise out of an order passed by the learned Chief City Magistrate-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 13-7-1964 whereby he directed the parties to approach the Civil Court in order to get the title to the lorry settled. What happened was that the police of Afzalgunj registered a case under Section 420 I. P. C. on 8-1-1963. That was in pursuance of a complaint filed by one of the petitioners complaining against one Chandrasekhar, who is his sister's husband's brother. It was contended that the lorry was purchased by the 2nd petitioner bearing registration No. APF 2171 on hire purchase basis from the 1st petitioner in 1960. That was a Ford 1944 model and was equipped with a diesel engine. When the said vehicle was in possession of one mechanic at Afzalgunj for repairs, Chandrasekhar the 1st accused, by falsely representing that the vehicle was to be taken beck to the 2nd petitioner took possession of the vehicle from the mechanic and then ...
Telkoti Ramchandraiah Gupta Vs. Firm Gandham Narayana Gupta and Sons a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP325
ORDER1. O.S. No. 72 of 1964 was filed to recover money due on a dishonoured hundi executed by the defendant Telkoti Ramchandriah Gupta. The hundi is drawn on Sri Kothur Seethiah Gupta, Osmanganj, Hyderabad, for Rs 1,600 in favour of Sri Gandham Narayana Gupta and Sons. Gan-dham Narayana Gupta and Sons endorsed it in favour of the State Bank of Hyderabad which presented it to Kothur Seethiah Gupta, but it was dishonoured. So the hundi was re-transferred by the State Bank of Hyderabad to the plaintiff who filed the present suit.2. The defendant filed I.A. No. 37 of 1965 under Order 13, Rule 3, Civil P.C., contending that the hundi is payable to the bearer and so is null and void and it was prayed that that question might be decided first. That application was opposed.3. The lower Court held that the hundi is a valid document and overruled the objection. Hence the defendant filed the above civil revision petition.4. Again, before me, it is contended that the hundi is one payable to bearer...
Smt. Denabai Boman Shah Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-1966
Reported in: [1967]66ITR385(AP)
JAGANMOHAN REDDY C.J. - The following two question have been referred to us by the Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi, for our opinion, viz. :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the house property described as 134, Park Lane Secunderabad was correctly included in the estate of deceased as property passing or deemed to pass on his death under the Estate Duty Act, 1953 and(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board were justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 31,640 being the value of the N. G. P. Notes with accrued interest should be included in the Estate of the deceased as property deemed to pass under section 13 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?'The relevant facts necessary for determining the above questions may be stated as follows : One Boman Shah Manekji (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') died on February 14, 1956, leaving behind his wife, 3 daughters, a daughter-in-law and grandchildren by his deceased son, Hoshan...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Abdul Rahim
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP231; 1968CriLJ1030
1. The only question to be answered in this appeal against acquittal of the accused of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is whether the Sessions Judge. Nellore was right in convicting the accused, Syed Abdul Rahim under part II of Section 304 Indian Penal Code after holding, a? he did, that the accused had intentionally and not accidentally pierced the knife below the chest which went deep producing internal injury of 1/2' x 1/2' x 1/2' right in the middle and front part of the heart to which the deceased succumbed within a few minutes.2. The circumstances under which and the manner in which the said offence was committed admits, to a large extent, of no dispute. It is common ground that on 25-10-1963 at about 2.00 P.M. the deceased went to the shop of the accused and demanded back 2 annas which the latter owed to him. Thereupon the accused pushed him saving 'Jare Kaminan' i.e 'get away mean fellow'. The deceased at once retorted and said that the accused and his father are 'Kamina'...
Conservator of Forests Nizamabad Circle, Nizamabad and ors. Vs. K. Sri ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP198
Anantanarayana Ayyar, J. 1. Sridhara Reddy filed Writ petition No. 106 praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ, direction or order as may be deemed necessary to restrain respondents 1 and 2 from imposing and demanding a sum of Rs. 23,088 towards Government loss or fine and to restrain them from collecting the said sum as arrears of land revenue. This sum included a sum of Rs. 11,250 by way of penalty. There were three respondents in the said Writ Petition viz.. the Conservator of Forests. Divisional Forest Officer and Tahsildar.2. Sridhara Reddy filed another Writ Petition No. 107 of 1962 against the same respondents for similar relief regarding another sum of Rs. 27,949 which included a penalty of Rs. 14,500.3. The respondents represented by the learned IIIrd Government Pleader, contested the two Writ Petitions after filing counter in each of them.4. Our learned brother. Gopal Rao, Ekbote J heard both the Writ Petitions together by comm...
Karri Mahalakshmi and ors. Vs. Satyavolu Venkata Bhaskara Umamaheswara ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP334
1. The question that arises for decision is whether a person who purchased the judgment-debtor's property under an agreement of sale is entitled to file an application under Order 21 Rule 89 C.P.C. to set aside a Court sale. The facts giving rise to CMA No. 336/62 are as follows:2. The appellant herein obtained an agreement of sale dated 19-5-1958 from the Judgment debtor, paid a part of the purchase money and took possession of the property. Subsequently, the property of the vendor was sold on 28-8-1961 in a court sale in execution of a money decree against the appellant's vendor. The appellant also demanded the performance of the agreement by issuing registered notices dated 22-6-1958 and 31-8-1960 showing his readiness and willingness to complete the sale. The appellant filed an application E A 198/61 in E P No. 18/60 in OS. No. 17 of 1956 on the file of the District Court, Rajahmundry under Order 21 Rule 89 to set aside the court sale on making the necessary deposits as required by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »