Chennai Court November 2003 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Surekha P. Kothari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Mad)177
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessment year is 1985-86. The questions referred for our consideration are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the foreign travel expenses incurred on behalf of the assessee by the company in which her husband is the managing director cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee under Section 2(24)(iv) of the IT Act?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the CTT 's order under Section 263, dt. 27th March, 1989, holding that the amount of Rs. 53,487 being the foreign travel expenses of the assessee met by M/s Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. cannot be treated as perquisite in the hands of assessee?'2. The assessee had accompanied her husband Mr. P.V. Kothari, who was the managing director of the company when he went to Europe and U.S.A. between 27th April, 1984 and 7th June, 1984. The expenditure incurred...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Smt. Surekha P. Kothari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: [2004]135TAXMAN539(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.The assessment year is 1985-86. The questions referred for our consideration are:'1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the foreign travel expenses incurred on behalf of the assessee by the company in which her husband is the Managing Director cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee under section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act?2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the Commissioners order under section 263 dated 27-3-1989 holding that the amount of Rs. 53,487 being the foreign travel expenses of the assessee met by M/s. Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. cannot be treated as perquisite in the hands of assessee?'2. The assessee had accompanied her husband Mr. P. V. Kothari, who was the Managing Director of the company when he went to Europe and U.S.A. between 27-4-1984 and 7-6-1984. The expenditure incurred on her ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Yashoda Raju Vs. A. Kuselan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad106; (2004)1MLJ142
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J. 1. This revision is posted for admission and I heard the counsel for the petitioner.2. The tenant is the revision petitioner, who has filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 270 of 2001 in RCOP No. 44 of 2000 seeking permission to file additional counter, which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate authority, hence this revision petition.3. On 07-06-2000, the respondent herein has filed RCOP No. 44 of 2000 before the learned Rent Controller, Ootacamund for eviction against the petitioner herein under Section 10(2)(1) and 14(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act. The petitioner herein has filed his counter on 28-09-2000 through his then counsel. In Para-2 of the counter, the petitioner has admitted that the respondent herein is the landlord. The petitioner also filed suit O.S. No. 74 of 2000 before the District Munsif, Ootacamund to restrain the respondent herein from dispossessing her without due pr...
Tag this Judgment!Vasu Chemicals Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ623; [2006]143STC27(Mad)
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the third respondent in M.T.A. No. 528 of 2000 in so far as it relates to levy of tax on the inter-State sale of soaps (metal polishing) for the assessment year 1998-99 and to quash the order of the third respondent dated December 13, 2000.2. The petitioner is registered dealer on the files of the first respondent having a factory in Sivagangai District. They have been issued with certificate of recognition by the Regional Office of Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Madurai, as one of the recognized village industries under the purview of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission. The petitioner is manufacturing metal polishing soaps which according to him is included in the Schedule. The petitioner was engaged in the developmental activities of Khadi and Village Industries Commission and it was therefore recommended that the petitioner's ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Thanigaivelu Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC183; (2004)ILLJ1141Mad
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. Petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the first respondent dated 9.10.2000 bearing No.Na.Ka.607/2000.A3 passed under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and to quash the same and direct the second respondent to re-instate the petitioner.2. By the impugned order dated 9.10.2000, the first respondent has upheld the order of dismissal dated 24.2.99 passed by the second respondent against the petitioner. The petitioner was employed as Special Grade Supervisor in the second respondent-Society. He was issued with a charge sheet dated 20.3.98 in which two charges were levelled against him. The charges were that he failed to perform his duties and thereby brought disrepute to the Society and that while disbursing the loans to the Members part of the loans were misappropriated by forging the signatures of the Members. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 18.4.98 denying the charges. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was held. Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Harman Steel Industries Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: [2006]146STC292(Mad)
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in a matter arising under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The merits of the case need not be gone into, for the reason that a primary point of audi alieram partem rule is projected.2. It is the case of the appellant that the revised notice dated November 13, 2002 has not been served on him. We called for the file, and the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), has produced the same today. A look at the said revised notice (inner page 6) makes it clear that the said notice was not served on the appellant. We are not able to agree that the appellant was not available for, previous notices were served in person. Apart from that, it is mentioned that, a notice by registered post with acknowledgment due (in short, 'RPAD') was sent to the dealer, but that has not been sent. We find only on endorsement of an office assistant dated November 15, 2002 stating that the notice was affixed on...
Tag this Judgment!Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (intavh), Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC513
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. 1. This writ petition has been filed as a pro bono publico seeking restraint against the 3rd respondent from exercising her rights over the property, in which the Madras Club is situated. Planning to build a new structure on the said property, by demolishing the old structure, the 3rd respondent has applied to both the first and second respondents for the grant of necessary permissions. The first respondent is the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority vested with the power of granting planning permission, while the second respondent is the Municipal Corporation of Chennai vested with the power of sanctioning permissions for both demolition of existing structures and also construction of new structures in its place. 2. The plea of the writ petitioner is that the building with its appertaining land, whole of which ad measure 20 acres, is a heritage building, and it has been identified as such by the Heritage Advisory Committee, which was formed to advic...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Sharma, Vs. A.V.M. Parcel Service and United India Insurance ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: III(2004)ACC95; 2005ACJ1126; (2004)1MLJ12
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. Not being satisfied with the award passed in MCOP No.295 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madras, the claimants have filed the above appeal.2. Sharda Sharma, the wife of the first appellant and mother of appellants-2 and 3, while crossing Anna Salai, (Guindy) Madras, from west to east, was knocked down by a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-55-2377, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, with the result, she sustained injuries and ultimately died. The appellants herein filed a petition under Sections 140 etc. of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed under the said Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. In the said petition, the appellants contended that she was carrying on the profession of Tailor (self employed) and earning a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month.3. The respondent herein resisted the petition on various grounds and one of the grounds taken is that the quantum of compensation claimed is h...
Tag this Judgment!Carborandum Universal Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)48; [2004]265ITR372(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The reference is at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year is 1987-88.2. The first question is concerned with the interpretation of Section 32AB and as to whether it has been construed too narrowly by the Tribunal.3. The Tribunal has held that the exclusion of the amount of interest on securities, dividends and rents while making the computation under Section 32AB of the Act was in accordance with Section 32AB even though all those amounts form part of the computation that was required to be made in terms of Parts II and III of the Sixth Schedule to the Companies Act for arriving at the profits from the assessee's business.4. Section 32AB which deals with investment deposit account in Sub-section (1) provides that,'Subject to the other provisions of this section, where an assessee, whose total income includes income chargeable to tax under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession', has, out of such income,-- shall be allowed a deduction (...
Tag this Judgment!Eonour Technologies Ltd. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Stock Exchange
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: [2005]124CompCas122(Mad); [2005]59SCL723(Mad)
A.K. Rajan J.1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of writ of mandamus, to direct the Stock Exchange of Madhya Pradesh to grant permission for trading their 3, 63, 27, 271 equity shares on their application dated September 9, 2002. But the respondents did not take any action on the application within the stipulated period of ten weeks. The petitioner therefore approached the Securities Appellate Tribunal under Section 22A of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. But, the Tribunal returned the papers and refrained from deciding the appeal, since the managing director of the petitioner-company was known to the sole presiding member of the Tribunal. Since there was no alternative remedy, the petitioner approached this court for a writ of mandamus as stated above.2. The petitioner is a public limited company; it acquired shares of M/s. I. Trigger Technologies Private Limited, M/s. Web Net Technologies Private Limited, M/s. Linux Solutions Private...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »