Chennai Court March 2003 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sakthi Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)560; [2003]262ITR375(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessment year is 1986-87.2. The questions referred to us for our consideration are :By the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) finding that the cost of installation of overhead cleaner, speed frames and humidification plant is capital expenditure (sic) ?' By the assessee 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenditure incurred in replacing the blow room machinery is not deductible as a revenue expenditure ?' 3. The machineries installed are overhead cleaner, speed frames and humidification plant. The order of the Assessing Officer does not give much information about the nature of the machineries. The Commissioner has held that the overhead cleaner was installed with a view to minimise the dust particles in the place of work and that the expenditure incurred for instal...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Director of Fisheries Vs. Capital Ref ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTLJ71(Mad); (2003)2MLJ204
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.2336 of 1981. 2. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant herein. The plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.88,376.94. The claim of the plaintiff was that all the defendants would be jointly and severally liable for a sum of Rs.34,200/- along with interest thereon from the date of plaint till realisation and the first defendant would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.54,176.94 along with interest from the date of plaint and also for costs. The first defendant is the principal debtor and he had entered into a contract with the plaintiff and the second defendant executed a deed of guarantee and the deed of guarantee was continued by a further deed of guarantee dated 10.3.1967, marked as Ex.B-1. The plaintiff has not produced the original deed of guarantee, nor the second defendant has produced the guarantee deed ex...
Tag this Judgment!Flat Promoters' Association, rep. by Its Secretary, R. Thamil Selvan V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad191; 2003(2)CTC90
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the impugned Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.253, Public Works Department, dated 18.2.1992.2. Before passing the impugned Government Order, the petitioners and other builders at Chennai could get power connection irrespective of the fact whether they completed the building or not.3.The Government exercising powers given under Section 78-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, hereinafter called 'the Act 1948' issued the impugned Government Order directing the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to insist a person to apply for power connection to produce planning permission for the development as detailed in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 along with the completion certificate issued by the authority such as Local Planning Authority, Town Development Authority, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority or any other authority designated by the Government to issue planning permission and complet...
Tag this Judgment!Tvl. Jegam Blue Metal Vs. the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corpora ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC533(Mad)
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent dated 12.10.1999 and consequential proceedings of the second respondent dated 3.3.2000 and to quash the same and to permit the petitioner to continue to avail the benefit of the IFST deferral scheme. 2. The following facts are sufficient for the disposal of the writ petition considering that the writ petition is to be allowed on the ground of non-compliance of principle of natural justice:- The petitioner, an industry, involved in purchase of big stone boulders and disintegrate them into jelly by feeding the boulders into the machines. The finished product 'Blue Metal Jelly' is liable to be taxed under Item 7-B of Part-B of the first schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 3. With a view to encourage the new industry, the State Government was giving incentives for establishment of the new industry. In the year, 1990, def...
Tag this Judgment!J. Abdul Salam Vs. Arulmigu Koniamman Devasthanam by Its Executive Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC536; (2003)3MLJ377
A. Kulasekaran, J. 1. The second defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The first respondent herein has filed the suit O.S. No. 2043 of 1982 against the appellant and respondents 2 to 5 herein. The trial court decreed the suit and the appeal preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed by the first appellate Court, hence the present second appeal.2. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law are framed for consideration in this second appeal. i) Whether the Courts below are right in holding that the legal heirs of the deceased second defendant in the suit are not necessary parties, while holding the second defendant as the tenant under the 1st respondent/Plaintiff. ii) Whether the courts below erred in Law in not holding that the suit stands abated for not bringing the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant in the suit, who according to the 1st respondent/plaintiff is the tenant? iii) Whether the courts below erred in law in not appl...
Tag this Judgment!Geetha Ramachandran Vs. S. Ravichandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: II(2003)BC549; 2003(2)CTC171
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J.1. This revision has been filed against the orders passed in C.M.P. No. 2675 of 1999 in CC.No. 330 of 1996, dated 17.11.1999, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Ambattur, refusing to declare the respondent herein as a proclaimed offender, as contemplated under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.2. The circumstances under which the said petition has come to be filed before the Court below is as follows :-'(a) The respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000 from the complainant, the petitioner herein, as loan. Towards, the discharge of the liability, the accused issued a cheque dated 30.1.1996, drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Mayiladuthurai for the said amount, in favour of the complainant. When the same was presented, it was returned on account of insufficiency of funds. (b) After observing all the mandatory provisions contemplated under the Negotiable Instruments Act, prosecution was launched for offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, ag...
Tag this Judgment!Dhandapani (Died), Vs. Karpakam,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ732
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the appellants are tenants in respect of the suit property, rejecting their claim that they are entitled to the suit property under the agreement between the first plaintiff's husband and the defendants. In the said context, the appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law.'Whether the courts below are right in passing a decree for recovery of possession without resorting for eviction proceeding under the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, as amended Act 1/1980 when particularly the suit property is situate within the city limit of Coimbatore Corporation after having found that the defendants are tenants?' 2. Admittedly, the suit property was assigned to one Devarajan, husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the plaintiffs contend that the first defendant became a tenant and the second defendant is his wife. 3. On the contrary, the defendants, pa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sakthi Sivam theatres (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)569; [2003]263ITR644(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us for consideration, at the instance of the Revenue is, 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to carry forward of business loss ?' The assessment year is 1984-85.2. Section 80 of the Act, as it stood in that assessment year, reads as follows :'Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed under Section 139, shall be carried forward and set off under Sub-section (1) of Section 72 or Sub-section (2) of Section 73 or Sub-section (1) of Section 74 or Sub-section (3) of Section 74A.'3. It is undisputed that the assessee did file the return before the expiry of the period specified in Section 139(4) for this assessment year, although that return was filed after the assessee had been called upon to file the return and after the assessee's request for extending the p...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Meenakshi Asphalts
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Mad)138; [2004]266ITR626(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J.1. The question, which arises for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the activity of heating raw bitumen to 300 degrees centigrade, without any addition or chemical change in order to obtain solid bitumen, constitutes 'manufacturing activity', entitling the assessee to claim deduction under Sections 80HHA and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a small scale industrial undertaking, which makes blown bitumen. The process involved in making it as set out by the assessee is waste scrap bitumen is heated in a heating tank up to 225 degrees centigrade and is transferred into a reactor, and blown by air compressor, which raises the temperature up to 300 degrees centigrade. Thereafter, it is kept in a chamber for three to four hours, during which period the water and oil in the bitumen evaporates. As part of the oil that is so removed does not evaporate fully, a portion of it comes down as process...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Seshadri and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CompLJ418(Mad); [2004]54SCL118(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. These petitions are filed by the respective petitioners under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to relieve them wholly or partly from the alleged liability on such terms as the court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case pursuant to show-cause notice, dated 26.3.2002, 10.4.2002 and 12.7.2002 issued by the respondent.2. The case in brief is as follows: The company was originally incorporated under the name of Pentagon Consultancy and Agency (P) Ltd. on 5.5.1976. The said company is now known as Pentafour Software and Exports Limited and the certificate of incorporation was changed to that effect by the respondent on 24.2.2000. The registered office of the company is situated at No. 1, First Main Road, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 75 crores. The object for which the company is incorporated is to carry on business pertaining to or connected wi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »