Chennai Court May 2003 Judgments
Shriram Chits and Investments P. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)263ITR65(Chennai)
1. The appeal by the assessee, a company carrying on the business of running of chits, is on the aspect of proper method of accounting of its income from the running of chit business. The issue raised in this present appeal is a matter of concern of companies and other persons carrying on the chit business all over Tamil Nadu. The hon'ble President of this Tribunal accordingly constituted this Special Bench, to examine the concept of the chit business governed by the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the CFA"), enacted by the State Legislature and determine the system of accounting that would reflect the proper income for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for assessment of income under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").2. The assessee was represented by learned counsel, Mr. Gopal, and the Department was represented by Mr. Acharya, who holds the rank of the Commissioner of Income-tax. Both Mr. Gopal and Mr....
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Superintending, Engineer/Nct ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ735
E. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The first batch of appeals have been preferred by The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board represented by its Superintending Engineer, North Madras Thermal Project, Ennore, for whose benefit vast extent of lands were acquired, in all the first batch of appeals. The appellant challenges the enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruvallur in 152 LAOPs, while cross objectors claimed enhanced compensation in the respective appeals. 2. The second batch of appeals have been preferred by various claimants/land owners claiming enhanced compensation in addition to the compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruvallur in the respective LAOPs. The land owners have also preferred cross objections in some of the appeals preferred by the beneficiary. 3. Heard Mr. S. Rajeswaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/electricity Board, Mr. G. Jeremiah, Mr. Thankasamy, Mr. G. Perumal, Mr. Jagadeesh Ilango, Mr. N.R. Anantharamakris...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Shamsudeen Vs. A.M. Mohamed Salihu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ526
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. There are ten appeals and two Civil Revision Petitions arising out of a common order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur in O.S. No. 6 of 1970 dated 25.9.2001 wherein learned Scheme Judge (Principal District Judge, Thanjavur) appointed certain trustees, both hereditary and non-hereditary, for the administration of a wakf, that is, M.K.N. Madarasa, Adirampattinam. The appeals and Civil Revision petitions have been preferred by the persons who were not selected by the learned Scheme Judge, and we find it almost a common feature that the unsuccessful candidates who were not selected approach this Court against the order of selection at every selection made and the litigation goes on endlessly. It is painful to note that serious allegations and counter allegations have been made by one party against the other and the Courts have interfered on more than one occasion to set right the affairs of the trust so that the trust is properly conducted...
Tag this Judgment!Sri P.N. Ananthanarayanan Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ570Mad; (2003)2MLJ633
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. All these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner who is now working as Deputy General Manager in the State Bank of India, hereinafter called 'the Bank' and the crux of the issue raised in all these writ petitions is non-promotion of the petitioner.2. In W.P. No. 8732 of 2000, he has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus to promote him as Deputy General Manager with retrospective effect from the year 1988-89 on par with A.K. Purwar (the fourth respondent) and all further promotion thereon with consequential benefits.3. In W.P. No. 8733 of 2000 he has prayed for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring the promotion policy of S.B.I. for the purpose of promotion to TEG Scale VI, namely from Deputy General Manager and above, as illegal and void more particularly Clause IV(C) of the said policy as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.4. In W.P.Nos.8642 of 2002, he has sought for the issue of a writ of mandamus to ens...
Tag this Judgment!Global Metals Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imports) and Spk Impex
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(88)ECC579
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner, who is engaged in the business of export of metals and metal scraps, has prayed for Mandamus to permit the reshipment of 8 containers for which bill of entry has been filed and being inspected by the first respondent hearing the container numbers an detailed in the writ petition in accordance with the petitioner's representation dated 10.3.2003 and 26.3.2003 in W.P. No. 10670 of 2003.2. In W.P. No. 10671 of 2003, the petitioner has made a similar prayer in espect of 7 containers for which bill of entry has not been filed bearing invoice numbers as detailed in the writ petition.3. Heard both the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the first respondent Customs Department.4. According to the petitioner, the goods in question were consigned by them to the second respondent from various Ports to Chennai and from Chennai which was intended to be re-exported elsewhere. The terms of arrangement between the petitioner and the importer ...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishnan Alias R.K. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4167
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner who is accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 420, IPC read with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and under Section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 as per the case registered by the respondent in their Crime No. 42/03, has come forward to file the above Criminal Original petition seeking Anticipatory Bail on grounds such as that on 24-1-2003 a complaint was lodged by an individual viz. Jayaraman of Ayanavaram, Chennai stating that he has been cheated to the tune of Rs. 5990/- in the name of a scheme floated by the petitioner and others under pretext and guise of selling Magnetic Cot and other articles by canvassing and enlisting third parties in the name of becoming pilferage under the banner of Multi Level marketing and he has been cheated of the said money without com...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›