Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Sorted by: old Court: andhra pradesh Year: 1966 Page 1 of about 12 results (0.064 seconds)

Apr 15 1966 (HC)

Jayalakshmi Rice and Oil Mill Contractors Co., Angalur Vs. Commissione ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-15-1966

Reported in : AIR1967AP99; [1967]64ITR125(AP)

..... rule 2 (b), as distinct from rule 2(a), following from the assessee exercising a statutory right given to him under s. 58 of the indian partnership act to convert an unregistered partnership into a registered partnership by an act of his volition.(27) the question is whether the period of limitation for this application automatically became extended when it was pending before the income-tax ..... on the ground that the first defendant had counter-manded payment. the managing proprietor of the plaintiff-firm sent a statement prescribed under section 57(1), travancore partnership act, which corresponded to section 58 of the indian partnership act, with the prescribed fee on 8-11-1947 and they were received by the registrar of joint stock companies on 12-11-1947. the plaintiff filed ..... not refer to the corresponding english law or the commentary of lindley which we have extracted earlier in this judgment. the question of the requirement of section 69 of the indian partnership act that the person suing should be shown in the register of firms as a partner in the firm does not arise in the present case. here, we are concerned with ..... the view which it took regarding that contention as follows:-'the contention on behalf of the assesse firm was that since it had made its application for registration under the indian partnership act on 20-10-1955, which was before the end of the 'previous year' the time limit (b) that is, 'before the end of previous year' and accordingly the application was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 1966 (HC)

Ramakrishna Transports, Kalahasti Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andh ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-15-1966

Reported in : AIR1968AP34; [1968]68ITR107(AP)

..... ipso facto become partners in the business so as to clothe them with all the rights and obligations of a partner as defined by the indian partnership act. in such a case the family as a unit does not become a partner but only such of its members as in fact enter into ..... . the question for consideration is where some of the joint family members be-come partners (within the meaning of the term in the partnership act) in a partnership firm can they become so only in their individual character qua their separate properly or they can as well become such partners, by reason ..... property between the coparceners themselves. the principle laid down is unexceptionable for in relation to coparcenary properly, the coparceners cannot become partners themselves. section 5 of the partnership act makes this abundantly clear. the decision of the allahabad high court is s. c. mulllck & sons. in re, (1938) 6 itr 89 is ..... the joint family. their actual shares may be much less. as representatives they are one body for purposes of hindu law as partners under the partnership act vis-avis the strangers and other partners they may be distinct. whatever the rights and liabilities vis-a-vis the other partners, they have a ..... in the naturt of trade, the rights and liabilities of coparceners constituting the family firm are therefore not to determined by exclusive reference to the partnership act. so long as the trade is being carried on by them and no strangers are associated with them in any manner its incidents must .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 1966 (HC)

E.S. Velayudhan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-20-1966

Reported in : AIR1968AP50

..... as he do, little or nothing of either income-tax law or the laws of three taxes, or accountancy or the allied laws of partnership act, contract act, transfer of property act, registration act, hindu law as modified and codified recently etc.' and he ended his explanation quoting the bible 'my lord! he knoweth not what he ..... petitioner under the cochin civil service regulations were not carried over after the constitution and after the financial integration of part b states with the indian union by reason of the fact that the rules were framed by the president under article 309 and article 148 of the constitution for the ..... tax department, government of india with effect from 1-4-50. the date of the financial integration of the tra-vancore-cochin state with the indian union is not in dispute his service book evidences that he had opted for the central scales of pay and the other conditions of service ..... andposts in connection with the affairs of the union, shall be modified to the extent indicated below. in so far as persons serving in the indian audit and accounts department are concerned, these modifications have been directed after consultation with the comptroller and auditor general.'section 1-pension.rule 2(2): ..... to the coming into effect of the united states of travancore-cochin and later the integration of the part b states with the rest of the indian union. on 1-4-40 the petitioner was appointed as inspector of income-tax in the scale of pay then existing in cochin. his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1966 (HC)

Dinshawji (Died) and ors. Vs. Abdul Rasool Khan

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-19-1966

Reported in : AIR1967AP119

..... act, it nevertheless becomes unlawful when it intends to conduct the business jonder sectionicence granted to one only of the partners'. we are ..... submitted by the learned counsel, even then before this agreement matures in to a valid contract of partnership, permission under section 14 of the act was necessary. if the defendant failed to appeal under section 14 of the act, what must follow is that no contract of partnership came into existence. the only complaint which the plaintiff can make in such a case is ..... within the mischief of section 23 of the indian contract act. it cannot now be in doubt that a licence under the akbari act is a personal privilege to vend or supply liquor. even if it is therefore, acquired by one partner, it cannot be said that the licence is granted in favour of any partnership. the licence in such a case is certainly ..... the licence, which is prohibited under r. 27 and punishable under section 56, or a breach of section 5, abkari act, punishable under s. 55, because the unlicensed partner, by himself or through his agent, the other partner, sells without a licence. if a partnership is lawful at its inception, because it is not intended to infringe any provision of the contract .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 1966 (HC)

First Additional Income-tax Officer, Visakhapatanam Vs. Uppala Peda Ve ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-23-1966

Reported in : [1967]64ITR93(AP)

..... had shown himself as a partner of two different firms in each of which one of the minor sons was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. in spite of this, the order of assessment of the father-partner did not take into account the share income of the minor sons. what ..... ) vuppala peda venkataramaniah & sons, commission kottu. each of the two minor sons of the petitioner has been admitted to the benefits of one of these two partnerships. nookaiah setty, one of the minor sons of the petitioner, is a partner in the oil mill. the other minor son, ramanaji rao, is a partner ..... decision of the judicial committee in commissioner of income-tax v. khemchand ramdas. the headnote given in the report reads as follows :'though the indian income-tax act nowhere imposes any limit of time within which an assessment under the provisions of section 23 and 29 is to be made and the service ..... sought to be made is just and proper, inasmuch as the share-income of the minor sons in the partnership firm should have been included in the petitioner as per the provisions of the act, the learned judge ought to have refused to exercise his discretion under article 226 of the constitution of india ..... kondaiah, the learned counsel for the department, realising this, mainly relief on section 35 (5). this section was incorporated by section 19 of the indian income-tax (amendment) act, 1953 (xxv of 1953), with effect from april 1, 1952. this provision can only be invoked where, in respect of any completed assessment of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 1966 (HC)

Akkipeddi Gopalasastry Vs. Vijayawada Engineering Metal Co. Ltd.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-21-1966

Reported in : AIR1968AP41

..... agreement whereby the defendant was put in possession of the workshop to bring it into a working condition on terms of sharing profits analogues to a partnership agreement. in view of the clear recital in ex. a-1 whereby the defendant agreed to pay a share of the profits it is not ..... the same. such a suit is in our opinion governed by the specific article 49 of the indian limitation act. our learned brother, however, held that the suit is in time under article 120 of the limitation act. we are with due respect to our learned brother unable to agree with the said reasoning but ..... 120 cannot be invoked. hence we have to examine the scope and| applicability of article 49 of the limitation act9. article 49 of the limitation act provides for a suit for recovery of specificmovable property or for compensation for wrongfully detaining the same and a limitation of three years is fixed starting from ..... the parts on 21-10-1953 itself to the plaintiff and that the suit in any event is barred by limitation under article 115 of the limitation act. on the question, namely whether the defendant delivered the machinery to the plaintiff, the trial court as well as our learned brother negatived the plea ..... contended that the suit is in substance one for compensation for breach of a contract not specially provided for and that article 115 of the limitation act governs the suit. he argued that the defendant repudiated the contract on 21-10-1953 itself and that there was accordingly a breach of the contract .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 1966 (HC)

Nagasuri Raghaveswar Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, A. P.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-11-1966

Reported in : [1967]66ITR496(AP)

..... the mines for carrying on mineral operations. it was a capital asset in his hands. he worked the mines for a view years himself forming a partnership firm. then he entrusted the working of mines to jajodias ltd., under the agreement. he did not assign his rights for the total unexpired period ..... yield appreciable profits or that there might have arisen some differences among the partners are long. thereafter, veeraraghavaiah did not choose to press forward and the partnership firm was dissolved. he then thought of an alternative method of exploitation which would ensure for him a dividend or income certain. he sub-leased the ..... and the mica mine was intended to be one of the sources of his income. he planned first to work the mine himself by forming a partnership firm consisting of himself (veeraraghavaiah), g. malakondiah and p. singiah under the name and style of nilgiri mica mining company, he having 12 annas share ..... & co. has attempted to define the term 'income' and referred to the word 'capital' in that connection in the following words :the object of the indian act is to tax income, a term which it does not define. it is expanded, no doubt, into income, profits and gains, but the expansion is more ..... period of 20 years with effect from may 30, 1945, on payment of a sum of rs. 60,000. he along with two others formed a partnership firm and company, for a few years. the firm does not appear to have fared well, and was subsequently dissolved. the lessee thereafter on february 21, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 1966 (HC)

Kasamsetty Radhakrishaniah Chetty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax A. P.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-15-1966

Reported in : [1967]64ITR522(AP)

..... of which he is a partners, because as a person having control over the affairs of the firm can expect a prompt repayment of the moneys.section 13 of the partnership act lays down thus :'13. subject to contact between the partners :...(d) a partner making for the purposes of the business, any payment or advance beyond the amount of capital he ..... has agreed to subscribe, is entitled to interest there on at the rate of six per cent annum.'thus, the act recognises a partner advancing moneys to the firm and being entitled to interest at 6% per annum. we do not consider it necessary to elaborate the point any further. it ..... 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 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 1966 (HC)

C. Satyanarayana and ors. Vs. Kanumarlapudi Lakshmi Narasimham

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-29-1966

Reported in : AIR1968AP330

..... receiver becomes necessary, and the receiver also becomes a necessary party. that is, however, not the case here. it is a simple money suit filed against the partnership firm and its partners, although the firm, may have been dissolved, but not completely wound up. it is evident from ex. d-6 that on 27-1- ..... hands of the receiver'.12. it is pertinent to note in this connection that the 2nd defendant is the person who has been appointed in the dissolution of partnership suit as the receiver. of course, he is not made a party as a receiver. however, in my opinion, to institute a suit to recover money ..... 56 in o. s. 130/55 which was a suit for the dissolution of partnership and accounts filed against the partners of the defendants' firm, a receiver was appointed. he was authorised to attend to collections in kirana business by either treating with ..... and i do not feel any difficulty in rejecting it. 10. the next contention was that the receiver was appointed in a suit for the dissolution of partnership firm, and unless the receiver is made a party and permission of the court is obtained, the suit is not maintainable. i do not find that there ..... would not amount to contracting out of the jurisdiction. that this is so is made clear from what the learned judge says referring to sheik dawood rowther v. south indian ry. co. ltd., (1944) 1 mad lj 489 = mr 1944 mad 444: 'but that was a case where there was a specific agreement saying that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 1966 (HC)

T. R. Ekambaram and Another Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Andhra Prad ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-14-1966

Reported in : [1967]66ITR67(AP)

..... arthanari iyer, survey stone contractor, where the survey party was working, that thereafter the party was disbanded, and he started quarrying in slabs and doing business in partnership with capitalists. in paragraph 3, he stated as follows :'providence has been very kind to me during all these years and my business has been prospering well. ..... he further stated that his first son, e. k. venkatesan, had been adopted into esainoor krishna iyers family and was only a partner with him in the south indian mining and slab company, bethamcherla; that his third daughter, kanakammal, was a dependent on him for the last several years, that she was without means of support ..... that the business had at some time been made a joint family business, no subsequent change of intention on the part of the father and no unilateral act of his could undo what had once been done. in that case also, like the case on hand the cycle business of the deceased was assessed ..... as that of an individual is proper and legal ?'this question arises for consideration in proceedings under the estate duty act taken in respect of the estate of one t. ranganatha iyer (herein after referred to as 'the deceased'), who died on 14th september, 1956, leaving behind ..... the question that has been referred to us by the central board of revenue under the estate duty act, 1953, is as follows :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the estate of the deceased .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //