Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2002]257ITR170(AP)
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. The Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), at the instance of the revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that firm Suleman Khan & Mahaboob Khan & Co., Tobacco Exporters, Guntur, was entitled to claim registration for the relevant assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 ?2. The background facts leading to the above reference be noticed first and they are as follows : The respondent assessee-firm, Suleman Khan & Mahaboob Khan & Co., Tobacco Exporters, Guntur, is a partnership firm and the assessment years involved are 1975-76,1976-77 and 1977-78. According to the Commissioner, the assessee-firm consisted of 23 partners (20 adults + 3 minors) during each of the above three assessment years and that since the total number of partners exceeded 20, the Commissioner thought that the firm was not validly cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1971]79ITR306(AP)
Gopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. This is a reference made to this court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), hereinafter called the ' Act ', and raises the following three questions :' (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to renewal of registration for the assessment year 1961-62 ? (2) Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction under Section 33B of the Act to set aside the order granting registration in the facts and circumstances of the case ? (3) Whether the assessee was afforded a reasonable opportunity by the Commissioner to present his defence ' 2. The facts out of which these questions arise may briefly be mentioned.3. The assessee is a firm known as Messrs. Addepalli Nageswara Rao & Brothers, Palakole, which consists of three major partners and one minor ; Nageswara Rao and his two brothers, Kasiviswanadham and Mareswara Rao, are the major partners; and Kamaraju, son of Nageswara Rao, is a minor. The firm was cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1986]158ITR773(AP)
Amareswari, J.1. The question referred for our decision is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was a valid partnership in law ?' 2. An interesting question indeed. Phabiomal Mulchand Mirpuri and, is three sons, Jiwatram, Gopichand and Bhagchand, who own a building in common entered into an agreement of partnership to let out the building and share the rents. The deed of partnership executed on May 1, 1974, recites that the firm's business shall be realising rents from letting out the building. The firm applied for registration under section 185(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1975-76 and for continuation of the benefit of registration for the year 1976-77. By order dated October 14, 1976, the Income-tax Officer refused registration and made the assessment treating the assessee as a body of individuals. The Income-tax Officer took the view that no business is carri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)ALD674
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Ms. Arshia Khatoon representing Smt. Sesharajyam and Mr. M.V. Nagaraj representing Mr. Rajalingam, the Counsel representing both the parties in the CRP.2. The CRP is filed against an order dated 26-7-1999 made in IA No. 9 of 1999 in OS No. 504 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.3. The revision petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit filed an application under Order XXIII, Rule 1 C.PC to permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit. The Court below by an order dated 26-7-1999 had allowed the application in part granting permission to the petitioner to withdraw the suit, but refusing liberty to file a fresh suit. Therevision petitioner aggrieved by the said order had preferred the present CRP.4. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The revision petitioner-petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 29,531.48 ps., and the registration certificate of the firm was not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : IV(2005)BC324; [2005]126CompCas426(AP); [2005]64SCL299(AP)
S. Ananda Reddy, J.1. This company petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 433(f), read with Section 439(1)(c) and (3) of the Companies Act, 1956 praying :(a) That M/s. Kobashi Machine Tools Private Limited, respondent-company be wound up under the orders and directions of this hon'ble court and the official liquidator attached to this hon'ble court be appointed as liquidator of the company with its affairs, properties, books of account, vouchers, papers, etc., with all powers under Section 457 of the Companies Act, 1956 ;(b) That pending the hearing and disposal of the petition, the official liquidator be appointed as provisional liquidator of the company under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 1956 with all powers, under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 ;(c) That the cost of this petition and of the order to be made thereon be provided for.2. It is stated that the first respondent-company--Kobashi Machine Tools Private Limited, (for short 'the company') was incorp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2007]139CompCas807(AP); (2007)2CompLJ493(AP)
Bilal Nazki, J.1. This appeal raises some interesting questions of law. An application came to be filed before the Company Court by a shareholder for winding up under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The Company Judge, however, instead of ordering winding up, dissolved the Firm 'Progressive Engineering Company (for short 'PEC') and directed settlement of accounts amongst its partners. The contention of the learned Counsel for appellant was that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Company Judge could have not ordered dissolution of the Firm PEC and as such, the order needs to be struck down. The Company Petition was filed by the 1st respondent namely Mr. P.S.V.P. Vittal Rao, who is since dead and his legal representatives are on record. 2. Before going to the pleadings and the questions that fall for consideration, certain other facts have to be taken note of. One is that the 1st respondent also filed an appeal against the order of the Company Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1975AP232
Chennakesav Reddy, J. 1. The only question requiring determination in this writ petition presented under Article 226 of the Constitution is as to the validity of Rule 4 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1957. 2. The aforesaid question arises in the following circumstances: The petitioner is a partnership firm named M/s Rajasthan Trading Company, Osmanganj Hyderabad, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The firm was registered on 8th October, 1968 Subsequently, there were alterations in the constitution of the firm and they were carried out as and when the changes were notified to the Registrar of Firms, Hyderabad On 14-11-1969 the partners of the firm were: Sri Satyanarayan Bhangadia, Smt Ratan Bai Bhattad, Sri Nandlal Sarda, Smt. Yashodabai, Sri Pannalal HiralaJ Bhangadiya, Religious and Charitable Trust, Bidar, represented by their trustees, Sri Srigopal Bhattad, and Sri Raj Kumar and Sri Kant, minors. On 19-10-1971 the last mentioned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD375; 2003(2)ALT626
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the Counsel for appellant Sri M.S. Ramchander Rao and the Counsel for respondent Sri T.S. Anand.2. The main Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself is taken up for hearing with the consent of both the Counsel in view of the fact that the application for temporary injunction was opposed by the respondent/ defendant by lodging a caveat and entering appearance. Both the Counsel had addressed elaborate arguments putting forth their respective contentions.3. The dispute is in relation to a trade mark 'Double Kamal' [Double Lotus]. The unsuccessful petitioner/plaintiff in IA No. 283/ 2002 in OS No. 11/2002 on the file of the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry is the appellant and the respondent/defendant in the said application is the respondent in the present Appeal. The appellant filed OS No. 11/2002 on the file of District Judge, East Godavari, at Rajahmundry for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from using the plaintiffs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1971]82ITR926(AP)
MADHAVA REDDY J. - The following question has been referred to us under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 :'Whether the assessee is entitled to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1961-62 ?'The question came to be referred in the following circumstances.M/s. Mandyala Govindu & Co., Proddatur, was assessed by the Income-tax Officer, Cuddapah, on February 17, 1962, as a registered firm and the determination of total income and the apportionment thereof between the parties was made accordingly. This assessment order was revised by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Four persons, M. Narayana, M. V. Ramaiah, M. Srinivasulu and M Jaganmohan, a minor, represented by his father and guardian executed a partnership deed on January 5, 1959. The terms of the said partnership, in so far as they are relevant for our present purpose, are as follows :'This deed of partnership executed on the 5th d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP380
Srinivasachari, J. 1. This case has come before the Full Bench on a reference made by our learned brother Krishna Rao J., in second appeal heard by the learned Judge. The appeal arises out of a suit for partition and recovery of a share in certain immovable properties or in the alternative for dissolution of partnership and for taking of accounts. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 10 to 12 belong to one family viz., Addanki family while defendants 1 to 9 belong to another family viz; Bhaskara family. These families founded a partnership at will somewhere in 1926 and carried on business in hulling rice and decorticating ground-nuts. On 2-2-1949 the plaintiffs issued a notice of dissolution of partnership being Ex. A-15 in the case. Thereafter on 4-3-1949 they filed the present suit claiming a one-fourth share in the properties belonging to the firm. The main objection of the defendants to this suit was that the plaintiffs had relinquished their share under Ex. B-18 dated 27-8-1936 under...
Tag this Judgment!