Andhra Pradesh Court April 1967 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.
Hyderabad Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, A. P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR320(AP)
JAGANMOHAN REDDY C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for our opinion, namely, whether the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under section 5(1)(xxi) read with section 45(d) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of the net wealth employed by it for its starch factory and carbon-dioxide treatment plant.The assessee-company was incorporated in 1934, and it was carrying on business of executing contracts for construction of masonry work, roadways, etc. In 1957, the company started the construction of a factory for production of starch and completed it in 1959, and also installed a carbon-dioxide treatment plant. As on December 31, 1958, the total assets of the starch factory and carbon-dioxide treatment plant amounted to Rs. 32,69,547, against which there were liabilities amounting to Rs. 10,60,447, the net wealth being Rs. 22,09,100. The company filed its return showing net wealth of Rs. 17,50,882. The amount of Rs....
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Andhra Pradesh Vs. Trustees of H. E. H. Niz ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR508(AP)
JAGANMOHAN REDDY C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had referred to us the following question, namely :'Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of section 21(4) of the Wealth-tax Act did not apply to the fact of the present case ?'The facts of the present case have been set out in the statement of the case with which the said question had been referred to us by the Tribunal. The assessees are the trustees of H. E. H. The Nizams Supplemental Family Trust. The assessment years are 1957-58,1958-59 and 1959-60 for which the corresponding valuation dated are March 31,1957, March 31,1958, and March 31,1959, respectively. The Wealth-tax Officer held that the shares of the beneficiaries were not determinate and, therefore, the trustees were liable for assessment on the whole of the wealth, and that the provisions of section 21(4) of the Wealth-tax Act were clearly applicable. It is unnecessary to state the corpus of the trust or the income it yields except to sa...
Shaik Ibrahim Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-18-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR117(AP)
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY C.J. - In compliance with the directions of this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions namely :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the activities of the assessee on the New York Cotton Market constituted 'business' within the meaning of section 2(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the income therefrom taxable under the Act and2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, whether the income on New York cotton betting is exempt from tax as 'casual and non-recurring' under section 4(3)(vii) of the Income-tax Act ?'These questions arise for determination in respect of the assessment years 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57 for which the relevant accounting years are the official years ending with March 31, 1954, March 31, 1955 and March 31, 1956, respectively. The assessee filed a voluntary return in respect of the assessment year 1954-55 and in respect of the ...
Smt. A. Jayalakshmamma Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-1967
Reported in: [1972]85ITR217(AP)
Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.1. The Income-tax Tribunal has referred the following question for our determination, viz., whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in adopting a period of 8 years as the basis for the valuation of the mines instead of four years 2. The estate of the deceased Ramanamma, who died on September 5, 1956, comprised among other properties a mica mining lease which she had obtained from the Government for a period of 30 years under a lease dated October 30, 1939. When she died on Septembers, 1956, it is apparent that she had owned the mining lease for 17 years and the unexpired lease would have run for further 13 years, but for the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 (53 of 1948) (hereinafter called 'the Act'), by and under which rules were framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 7 to alter the terms of the lease and the period of the lease granted prior to the date on which the Act came into force. It may also be stated ...
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Satyanarayana Kaithan (P.) Ltd.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-1967
Reported in: [1967]20STC409(AP)
Krishna Rao, J.1. T.R.C. No. 5 of 1966 is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh while T.R.C. No. 13 of 1966 is filed by the assessee against the same order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Tribunal Appeal No. 635 of 1962 dated 8th November, 1965, under the following circumstances : The assessee is a private limited company at Cheepurupalli, Srikakulam district, and carries on the business of exporting manganese ore. The present dispute relates to the proper tax leviable in respect of the assessee's purchase turnover of manganese ore for the year 1956-57. It is common ground that during the relevant assessment year, the parties are governed by the Madras General Sales Tax Act. Under Section 3(2-B), item (ii), 'manganese' is taxable at the rate of six pies in the rupee at the point of purchase by the last dealer who buys it in the State, while manganese ore which is not enumerated in any of the classes of goods mentioned in the Act was taxable only as general goods falling under Sec...
Prince Azam Jah Vs. Expenditure-tax Officer
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-14-1967
Reported in: [1970]78ITR364(AP)
Obul Reddi, J.1. These three appeals (W. As. Nos. 67, 68 and 69 of 1964) have been referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench of this court, consisting of Manohar Pershad C.J. and Mohd. Mirza., as they were of the opinion that an important question relating to 'interpretation ofsection 2(g) and Section 4(ii) of the Expenditure-tax Act (XXIX of 1967) is involved.' The appeals arise from the judgment of Jaganmohan Reddy J. (as he then was) dismissing Writ Petitions Nos. 712 to 714 of 1962 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Prince Alam Jah Bahadur, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, for the issue of a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ or order directing the Expenditure-tax Officer (respondent) to forbear from taking or continuing any action in pursuance of the notice dated May 5, 1962, issued under Section 16(a) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the expenditure assessment year 1959-60.2. The relevant facts necessary...
Commissioner of Gift-tax, A. P. Vs. P. Hanumanthappa and Another.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-14-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR363(AP)
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, has referred the following question, viz. :'Whether the gifts in question are liable to be taxed under the Gift-tax Act ?'The statement of the case discloses that the assessee (respondent) is a Hindu undivided family consisting of two brothers, P. Hanumanthappa and Sanjeevappa, who have made certain gifts of immovable properties in favor of their respective sons, some of whom were minors in the year of assessment, i.e., 1958-59, for which the previous year is the year ended March 31, 1958. The two brothers purported to have made the said gifts by executing four deeds of gift in favour of their sons. In the return filed by them, in answer to a notice issued under section 13(2) of the Act it was stated by the assessee that the gifts were inoperative having been made by the father to his sons. thereafter, a notice under section 15(2) of the ...
Kerla Ankamma Devasthanam Vinnakota Vs. Manikonda Venkata Ratnama and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP13
1. The sole question that arises for consideration in these second appeals is when does limitation start to run in case where a trustee alienates the property of the temple or the deity. 2. To appreciate the point involved in these second appeals, it may be necessary to state the relevant facts. The plaintiff (appellant) laid three connected suits O. S. 1/59, O. S. 33/59 and O. S. 34/59 in the Court of the District Munsif, Gudivada for recovery of the temple lands which are in the possession of the defendants. The case of the plaintiff in all the three suits is that the lands in question belonged to the temple and the previous trustees described as 'Maikonda family' were in possession of the suit lands of the temple on behalf of the temple and were utilising the net income derived from the lands for Dhoopa Deepa Naivedyam and for other festivals concerning the temple. While acting as hereditary trustee the members of the Manikonda family some of whom are now defendants, alienated the p...
irri Veera Raju and ors. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-11-1967
Reported in: [1967]20STC501(AP)
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.1. The main question in this batch of writ petitions and the tax revision case is whether the total turnover of a commission agent doing business for several principals is liable to be assessed to sales tax. We will take the facts in W.P. No. 562 of 1967 as typical of the common question arising in all the cases.2. The petitioner carries on business of jaggery as a commission agent on behalf of the ryots, who bring jaggery to his premises at Tadepalligudem, by selling the jaggery on their behalf. The ryots pay a commission to the petitioner for the services rendered by him; and in addition they also pay other incidental expenses and customary charges like dharmam etc. It is the case of the petitioner that he was submitting monthly returns for purposes of sales tax under Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter called 'the Rules') in Form A-2. Under Rule 17(2) of the Rules the petitioner has to pay the taxes if any due as per the return...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›