Andhra Pradesh Court June 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.
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Mohamed Ali
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP41; 1969CriLJ145
1. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Second Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Vijayawada, acquiting the sole accused altogether.2. The relevant facts are as follows.3. The Superintendent-in-charge, Central Telegraph Office, Vijayawada, filed a complaint on 13-11-1963, in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada, in which he stated as follows:-'Complaint filed under Section 195(1)(a), Criminial Procedure Code for offences under Sections 182, 417 and 471, I. P. C.The Superintendent-in-charge, Central Telegraph Office, Vijayawada, sent a requisition to the Sub-Regional Employment Officer, Vijayawada, on 9-7-1962 requesting him to send candidates for appointment as telegraph peons................. SD/- Complainant, Superintendent-in-charge, C. T. O., Vijayawada.' 4. The learned Magistrate, Sri G. Pulliah, took it on file making an endorsement as follows:-'Taken on file on 13-11-63 under Section 417 and 471, Indian Penal...
Vadrevu Venkappa Rao Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR552(AP)
JAGANMOHAN REDDY C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the case on the following two questions for our decision, namely :'(1) Whether the Wealth-tax Officer was justified in including in the total wealth of the assessee, the amount of Rs. 80,000, representing the amount of compensation receivable by the assessee from the Government and(2) Whether the Wealth-tax Officer was right in including in the assessment of the assessee the interest due to it on accrual basis ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and the assessment in question is in respect of the year 1960-61 for which the relevant valuation date is June 30, 1959. The assessee returned a net wealth of Rs. 5,04,200 which included Rs. 11,624.87 being the interest which accrued to the assessee on the loans made to its constituents in connection with money-lending business. The Wealth-tax Officer, however, determined the net wealth at Rs. 6,00,801, and amongst other additions, he made an addition of Rs. 80,000 as...
Smt. Cherukuri Eswaramma Vs. Controller of Estate Duty.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR109(AP)
JAGANMOHAN REDDY C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, has referred the following question for our decision :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the difference between the value of the one-fourth share of the properties to which the deceased was entitled on family partition and the share, which he actually received, is a gift includible under the provisions of section 9 read with section 27 of the Act ?'Cherukury Kutumbaiah died on October 26, 1958, leaving his widow, Smt. Cherukury Eswaramma, and three sons. The deceased and his three sons constituted a Hindu undivided family which was partitioned by and under a registered partition deed dated November 17, 1957, and in that partition, the net value of the estate which fell to the share of the deceased was Rs. 98,103 out of a total wealth of Rs. 8,26,774. The accountable person, viz., Smt. Cherukury Eswaramma, filed a statement of account showing the principal value of the estate on the date of t...
K. P. Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR638(AP)
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion, namely :'Whether penalty under section 28(1) (a) of the Act was exigible ?'This question arose in the following circumstances :The assessee, who is an individual, filed a return for the assessment year 1957-58, for which the relevant accounting period is the year ended March 31, 1957, on January 7, 1959, long after the time within which he should have filed a return in accordance with a public notice given under section 22(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. In that return, he declared an income of Rs. 1,601. The Income-tax Officer while accepting the turnover did not accept the 1% basis in arriving at the profits, and computed the profits at 25%. At the same time, he gave a notice to show cause why he should not levy a penalty under section 28(1) (a) of the Income-tax Act. In that proceeding, after considering his reply to the show cause notice, the Income-tax Officer levied a...
Polisetti Subbaraidu and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR738(AP)
SAMBASIVA RAO J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal of Hyderabad referred the following question for our decision :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the information collected by the department was disclosed to the assessee and he was afforded an opportunity as directed by this court in R.C. No. 17/56 and whether there is any material which could form the basis of an order under section 13 of the Income-tax Act ?'This case has had a long and tortuous history, having come to this court earlier on more than one occasion. The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of dyeing, printing and selling cloth. The assessment year for the purposes of income-tax assessment is 1947-48 for which the 'previous year' is the Telugu year Vyaya ended March 22, 1947. The chargeable accounting period for the business profits tax assessment is April 1, 1946, to March 31, 1947.The assessees lines of business are diverse, through the most important of them was manufacture and sa...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Bheemanathi Venkata Seshaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-27-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ983
Anantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. On a police charge sheet, the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Nandikotkur, framed a charge against the sole accused, Bheemanthi Venkata Seshaiah, as follows:That yon on or about the 6th day of May 1962 at Miduthur being the President of Weaver's Co-operative Society, Miduthur and in such capacity entrusted with monies of the Society committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said money of Rs. 3325-26 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. After full trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. Thereupon, the learned Public Prosecutor filed this appeal against the acquittal.2. The prosecution examined three witnesses. Of these, P.W. 1 was the Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies. P.W. 2 was the then Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies who made a complaint, Ex. P. 14, to the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, and P.W. 3 was the Sub-Inspector of Pol...
Sri Baba Commercial Syndicate and anr. Vs. Channamasetti Dasu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-26-1967
Reported in: AIR1968AP378
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur, given on 18-7-1964 where by he allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.2. The necessary facts are that the plaintiffs petitioners before me filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 628-81 nP. from the first defendant being the balance of principal and interest due on u promissory note, Ex. A-l, dated 14-10-1959, executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 900 and another sum of Rs.314 due as balance of the amount due on Chit No. 7 as per the account maintained in regular course of business by the plaintiffs. The second defendant was the partner of the firm. He was impleaded although it was alleged by the plaintiffs that the second defendant had given up his rights in the firm by virtue of a letter in favour of the second plaintiff. The first plaintiff is the firm, the second plaintiff being the sole surviving partner of the firm said to have been ...
Gunda Bhaskara Rao Vs. Controller of Estate Duty.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR309(AP)
JAGANMOHAN REDDY C.J. - The Central Board of Direct Taxes referred for our opinion the following question, viz. :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board were correct in holding that only court-fees paid on that portion of estate of the deceased, on which estate duty was charged can be allowed as a deduction under section 50 of the Act ?'This question arises in respect of the estate of one Gunda Eswaraiah, who died on June 6, 1958. The deceased, representing his Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his son, was a partner with another person, in a firm which had contracts with the Garrison Engineers. The deceased was the financing partner and, according to the terms of the partnership deed, all the assets and liabilities of the firm belonged to the deceased except to the extent of the capital share of profits of the other partner. The contract with the Garrison engineers stood in the name of the deceased a sum of Rs. 2,91,000 was due to be paid ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, A. P. Vs. Dharmavaram Mutual Benefit Perma ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR673(AP)
JAGANMOHAN REDDY C.J. - The Income-tax Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court, viz. :'Whether the income of the assessee-company is exempt from tax ?'This question arose in the following circumstances :The assessee, which is a public limited company, has amongst its objects :(a) to enable the shareholders to save money;(b) to enable persons with limited capital to make safe investment at reasonable rates of interest;(c) to grant loans to shareholders on a security of jewels, Government bonds, immovable properties and also on personal security; and(d) to do all such things incidental to and conducive to the attainment of the above objects.The assessee claimed exemption from tax, as it was a mutual benefit society, contending mainly that, in a case where all the person contribute to a common fund in pursuance of a scheme for their mutual benefit and have no dealings or relationship with any outside body, it could not be said that the association had ma...
Badrinarayan Balakishan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR323(AP)
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY C.J. - This court had directed the Income-tax Tribunal to state a case on the following question, viz. :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 26,251 is not a permissible deduction under section 10(1) or 10(2)(xi) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'The answer to this question depends on whether the sum of Rs. 26,251 has been established to represent bad debts.The assessee is a firm of three partners and the partnership was registered under section 26A of the Income-tax Act. For the assessment year 1955-56, for which the relevant accounting period was the year ended October 24, 1954, the assessee had written off certain items of debts owing from seven persons. These debts arose out of speculative transactions with the above seven persons in oil seeds, which were prohibited under law. The transactions entered into by the assessee resulted in profits, and since the method of accounting of the assessee was based on mercantile system, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »