Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1974]95ITR20(AP)
Sriramulu, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court for our decision, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922, by the Hyderabad Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal;' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer on the Hindu undivided family of Sri Kapoorchand Shrimal, for the years under reference, without passing an order under Section 25A, were valid in law (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 42,009 was a trading loss deductible in the assessment for the year 1958-59?' 2. The material facts, so far as they are relevant for answering the above questions, may briefly be stated. The assessment years concerned are 1955-56, 1957-58 to 1961-62, the relevant accounting years being the years ending Deepavali except for the cloth business. The assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973AP43
Kondaiah, J.1. This application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation act, 1963 by the Special Deputy Collector, Hyderabad is to condone the delay of 177 days in filing the C.C.C.A. Sr. No. 50292/71 against the judgment of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O. P. No. 260/28 enhancing the compensation in respect of land comprised in S. No. 616 admeasuring Ac. 9-31 Guntas situated at Malkajgiri Taluk, East Hyderabad district from Rs. 500/- per Acre to Rs. 5/- per Sq. Yard.2. We are not concerned in this application with the respective merits of the parties relating to the value of the property acquired. The short point for our decision is whether the petitioner had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal till 8.12.1971. Mr. Ramachandra Reddy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Principal Government pleader contends that the delay of 177 days in the filing of the appeal was not due to any negligence on the part of the petitioner but due to the circumstanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973AP168
1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 212 of 1967 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Rajam is the appellant herein. He has filed the suit for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with his possession over the plaint schedule site the defendant denies that fact and claims that he was in possession. The trial Court on examination of the entire evidence on record including the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 and the report of the Commissioner appointed by it to report about the local features of the suit site, held about the local features of the suit site, held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the properties and accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit. With that finding the appellate Court also concurred. In coming to the conclusion it observed that P.W.'s 1 to 3 support the case of the plaintiff and D.W's 1 to 5 were speaking in favour of the defendant in regard to the use of the suit site and then proceeded to hold that the Commissioner's report is the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1974]33STC207(AP)
Gopal Rao Ekbote, C.J.1. This case has come to us on a reference made by a Bench on 17th June, 1971.2. The facts in outline are that the petitioner-firm was doing groundnut business in 1962-63. The firm was purchasing groundnuts and after decorticating the same into kernel was selling the kernel to the dealers inside as well as outside the State. For the assessment year 1962-63, the Commercial Tax Officer, Cuddapah, determined the petitioner's net assessable turnover at Rs. 8,20,683.90 after allowing the exemption of turnover of Rs. 4,35,214.32 on the ground that the goods have suffered tax at the hands of subsequent dealers.3. The petitioner was still dissatisfied with the assessment order. He preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, Nellore, disputing the turnover of Rs. 3,70,714.65 which was subjected to tax. The disputed turnover comprised, inter alia, one of Rs. 97,200.51 and the other comprised of the rest of the turnover which was subjected to tax.4. The Assistant Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973AP198
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 250 of 1962, on the file of the District Munsif, Adoni, has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 26 of 1965 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Adoni. His suit for partition and separate possession of a 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property was dismissed by the trial Court and the decision of the trial Court was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaint schedule property, which comprises of an open site adjacent to a building bearing door No. 14 in Ward No. 29 of Adoni Municipality, belonged to his father and that his father had gifted the same to him and his two brothers, defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, under a registered gift deed dated 24-10-1960. Each of the donees is in possession of the property appurtenant to his premises but for the convenient enjoyment of the same it is necessary to partition the same by metes and bounds. The Ist defendant contended that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973AP125
1. These two second appeals arise out of two suits filed by the plaintiff ( Respondent in S. A. No. 435 of 1971 and 1st respondent in second appeal No. 436 of 1971 ) for recovery of possession for eviction and recovery of damages for use and occupation. S. A. No. 435 of 1971 arises out of O. S. No. 33 of 1963 while S. A. No. 436 of 1971 arises out of O. S. No. 2 of 1961. It is the plaintiff's case in O. S. No. 2 of 1961 that on 31-8-1953 the 1st defendant was inducted into possession as a lessee on his executing a lease deed agreeing to pay Rs. 101 /- per annum. Defendant 2 and 3 are members of the joint family of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant having entered into possession as a lessee inducted defendants 4 and 5 into possession and also committed default in payment of rent. In O. S. No. 33 of 1963, it is the case of the plaintiff that items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties were leased out to the father of the defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 on 17-12-1944 and item No. 3 was le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973AP51
1. This is an appeal by unsuccessful sole defendant in an action brought for injunction restraining him from using or exhibiting himself or through his servants or agents the trade name of the business used by the respondent or any device resembling it and also to recover a sum of Rs. 400/- by way of damages and some other incidental reliefs. The respondent-plaintiff was successful only to the extent of securing an injunction at the hands of the lower court. But his relief for damages failed. There are, however, no cross-objections brought by the respondent. 2. The plaintiff as well as the defendant are electric dry cleaners of clothes. The former had been trading under the name and style of ' One day Electric Dry cleaners' on the station Road, Kachiguda. The later started his trade a few yards away from the plaintiff's place of business on the same road under the name and style of 'Only one day Electric Dry cleaners.' Hence the present action. 3. The plaintiff alleges that she had bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973AP201
1. This appeal is by defendants 1, 3 and 11 against the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 256/69 on the file of the District Judge, Visakapatnam, reversing the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 52/66 on the file of the District Munsif, Narasipatnam.2. The plaintiff laid the suit for declaration of his title to, and recovery of the plaint schedule properties on the averment that the Ist defendant, the admitted owner of the properties, executed a gift deed . Ex. A-1 dated 19-1-1945 in favour of one Dasina Maridayya having died his heirs and legal representatives sold the same under the registered sale deed. Ex. A-23 dated 24-6-1965 in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 5,000 /-. The sale deed was ratified under a document Ex. A-25 dt. 19-1-1968. As the defendants interfered with his possession, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.3. It was the case of the Ist defendant that the gift deed was nominal and was not acted upon, and that even after the execution of the gift ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1973CriLJ504
Obul Reddi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 731 of 70 preferred by A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, and A-8 is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge. Srikakulam in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1970 convicting them under Sections 147 and 323 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to six months' rigorous imprisonment under each count and further convicting A-2 under Section 448 I.P.C. and sentencing him to six months' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences awarded to the accused are directed to run concurrently. The Criminal Revision Case No. 304 of 71 is preferred by P.W. 1 assailing the judgment of the Court below in acquitting A-1 and A-7 and in dismissing the petition filed on behalf of the prosecution to summon certain records from the Hospital for the purpose of cross-examining D.W. 1.2. The relevant facts of the case are these: The case against the appellants and A-1 and A-7 and another was that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1973]87ITR645(AP)
Alladi Kuppuswami, J.1. The assessee, Janaki Bai, and her minor son, Vaman Rao, together own a building in Hyderabad. They are also partners in the firm, M/s. New Taj Mahal Hotel, Sultan Bazar, 'Hyderabad, along with one Narayana Bhat. The assessee holds 371/2% share and the minor son holds another 371/2% share in the said business. The hotel is being run in the premises belonging to the assessee and her minor son. The total share income of the assessee in the partnership was determined at Rs. 39,847 and a similar amount was determined in the case of the assessee'sminor son. The son being minor, the minor's share was included in the assessee's income and the total share income from the firm was assessed in the assessee's hands at Rs. 79,694.2. The assessee claimed deduction of depreciation on the premises in which the, hotel is being run and further claimed deduction of the property tax, the two together being Rs. 4,354. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim. An appeal to the App...
Tag this Judgment!