Chennai Court November 2003 Judgments
Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: [2005]274ITR378(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessment year is 1985-86. The question referred for our consideration is :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that additional tax under Section 104 is leviable ?'2. The assessee is a banking company. It had a distributable income of Rs. 50,44,772 for the relevant previous year, which was required to be distributed as dividend. However, only a sum of Rs. 3,79,282 was distributed. The assessee sought to avoid the levy under Section 104, by contending that the Reserve bank had allowed it to declare a dividend of 20 per cent. and, therefore, only that amount which was required for declaring of 20 per cent. was utilised. The Tribunal has found that there was no prohibition in law against the declaration of a higher percentage of dividend and that the figure mentioned in the letter of the Reserve Bank was only the figure which the assessee itself had proposed to the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank merely g...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Melur Co-operative Urban Bank Limited Vs. the Deputy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC525
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The challenge in these Writ Petitions are to the orders of the first respondent dated 7.8.2000 in TNSE 14 and 15 of 2000.2. The above said impugned orders came to be passed by the first respondent in the appeals preferred by the respective second respondents herein under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter called, 'the Act').3. While the second respondent in W.P.No. 21591 of 2000 came to be appointed as Junior Assistant on 31.8.1998, the second respondent in W.P.No. 21617 of 2000 came to be appointed on daily wage basis as an Office Assistant from 19.8.1998. Subsequently, the second respondent in W.P.No. 21591 of 2000 was issued with an order dated 31.5.1999 placing him under regular time scale of pay with effect from 1.6.1999, whereas, the second respondent in W.P.No. 21617 of 2000 was issued with an order dated 31.5.1999 fixing his consolidated pay from 1.6.1999 and thereafter, he was issued with an order p...
Tag this Judgment!V.G. Paneerdas and Co. (P.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Nagarathna, Assistant Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: [2004]267ITR383(Mad)
M. Chockalingam, J.1. The petitioners seek for a direction of this court to the second respondent herein to dispose of the representation dated October 4, 2002, to compound the offences against the petitioners pertaining to C. A. No. 15 of 1999 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, as envisaged in Section 279(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Heard learned counsel for both sides.3. It is represented by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the matter is purely administrative in character and it is not a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that this petition has got to be dismissed on two grounds. At the outset it would be more appropriate to extract Section 279(2) of the Income-tax Act.'Any offence under this Chapter may, either before or after the institution of proceedings be compounded by the Chief Commissione...
Tag this Judgment!Premavathy @ Rajathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1475; 2004(2)CTC10
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of H.C.P. Nos.1038, 1111, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1085, 1170 and 1226 of 2003 as common question of law and also the facts are involved therein. Common arguments were also laid. While H.C.P. Nos.1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1085, 1170 and 1226 of 2003 have been argued by Shri B. Kumar, learned senior counsel, Shri P.V.S. Giridhar, learned counsel argued H.C.P. Nos.1038 and 1121 of 2003. 2. All the petitions are in the nature of habeas corpus petitions and seeking the liberty of the petitioners from the Special Camp, Chengalpattu, wherein they are lodged being Sri Lankan refugees and treating them as foreigners under Sec. 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act. In all the writ petitions, the orders, putting them in the Special Camp, passed by the respondent State Government, are also challenged. 3. All these writ petitioners are the citizens of Sri Lanka and they came to India. There has been a constant influx of Sri Lankan...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Traders and Om Saravana Trading Company Vs. the Commercial Tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC169(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu,J. 1. The submission for the assessee was that a sale within the State when it becomes a part of the sale in the course of export by reason of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is nevertheless a sale within the State and, therefore, goods purchased from unregistered dealers which becomes the subject matter of such sales cannot be subjected to tax under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.2. Mr. Natarajan, learned senior counsel invited our attention to the decision by the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Travancore -Cochin & Ors. v. Bombay Co. Ltd. AIR 1952 S.C. 366. It was held at paragraph 10 of the judgment that,'Assuming without deciding that the property in the goods in the present cases passed to the foreign buyers and the sales were thus completed within the State before the goods commenced their journey as found by the Sales Tax Authorities, the sales must, nevertheless, be regarded as having taken place in the cour...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R.K. Herbal (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: [2004]136STC632(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal has held that under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the revision to the Tribunal should be filed by the Deputy Commissioner, referred to therein, within the period computed by taking the date of service of the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the State's representative as the starting point.2. It has rejected the argument that was presented for the Revenue that the computation of time should begin from the date of service on the Deputy Commissioner. Section 38 refers to '...any person who objects to such order of the Deputy Commissioner...'. The Deputy Commissioners are many. The section does not specify which Deputy Commissioner. It requires that the revision should be preferred by a person who holds a responsible position in the higher rank of the Deputy Commissioner and that the filing of the revision to the Taxation Special Tribunal is not to be left merely to the assessing officer, who is on a lower rank. The me...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Ct) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2003
Reported in: [2004]134STC125(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee receives stocks of iron and steel from its head office which is at Jamshedpur. In respect of the goods so moved, the assessee as the transferee is required to furnish to the transferor form F prescribed under rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. It was unable to furnish copies of 13 of the 200 forms it had obtained from the authorities in the State of Tamil Nadu. According to the assessee those forms had not been used and had been misplaced. 7 of the forms produced by it contained some corrections.2. The Tribunal has held that in respect of those 7+13 forms, it was open to the assessing officer to assume that those forms had been used in respect of goods which had been moved and that the turnover relating to such movement of goods had been deliberately suppressed. The assessing officer had before him no material other than the report that the assessee was unable to produce the 13 forms.3. It could not ha...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Govindarajan Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC651; 2004(1)CTC525
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. Admit. Mr.Sanjay Ramasamy learned Government Advocate takes notice. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. The petitioner in each case is holding a national permit, the validity of which is upto 31.03.2004. The vehicles in question are admittedly 12 years old. The relief asked for in the writ petitions is for a direction in the nature of a mandamus to the respondent forbearing him or any of his subordinates from interfering with the operation of the vehicles in question till the expiry of the permit, on the ground that the vehicles are more than 12 years old. It is not in dispute that Rule 88 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 applies to the case on hand. Under the above Rule, no national permit shall be granted in respect of goods carriage, which is more than 12 years old at any point of time. This Rule is absolute. No discretion is left to the Authority concerned to give a permit ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. Vs. Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Mad)72
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred in TC Nos. 35 and 36 of 2001 concerning the asst. yr. 1985-86 are:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee engaged in export of granites was eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1985-86?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance, as the activities -of the assessee, namely, mining granite from quarries and exporting them after cutting, polishing, etc., would come within the purview of manufacture or production for the purpose of relief under Section 32A of the IT Act?'2. Counsel submit, and submit rightly that the first question is covered by the decision of this Court, against the assessee, and in favour of the Revenue, reported as CIT v. Pooshya Exports P. Ltd. : [2003]262ITR417(Mad) . The second question is...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Xomox (India) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Mad)141; [2004]271ITR228(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The asst. yr. 1987-88. The assessee had imported raw material for use in the process of manufacture made by it. On such imports, customs duty has been paid.2. The AO, while considering its claim for deduction of the amount of customs duty paid during the year under Section 43B of the IT Act, held that though that claim was in order, the assessee's further claim for exclusion of customs duty in the valuation of closing stock of raw material was against the principles of accounting and that the closing stock of raw material had to be valued after including the customs duty component. He went on the observe, 'both these amounts are not considered for the computation of total income for the year.'3. The appellate order refers to the ground relating to 'disallowance of customs duty component of closing stock of Rs. 14,39,060.' The CTT (A) directed that, that amounts be allowed subject to adjustment being made in the opening stock for subsequent year.4. On furthe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »