Chennai Court December 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Madura Coats Workers Co-operative Stores Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2004
Reported in: 2005(182)ELT159(Mad)
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition for issue of a Writ of Certiorarifled Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in C. No. V/33/30/19/9B-Adjn dated 3-6-1998, (Order No. 26/98) and quash the same as illegal, perverse and unconstitutional and further direct the 2nd respondent to classify the product, 'Shikai powder' under Chapter heading 14 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and consequently, declare that the product, 'Shikai powder' sold by the petitioner is not eligible to Central Excise levy.2. The petitioner is a co-operative society which also inter alia manufactures shikai powder. They got shikai seeds and crushed them and sold the same. According to the petitioner shikai is not excisable good. The respondents have treated the said goods are excisable goods and imposed excise duty. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.3. The learned Counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment of this...
State of Tamil Nadu and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Driving School Urimaiyalar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2004
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC577
P. Sathasuvam, J1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 22.6.1998, made in W.P. No. 13603 of 1997, in and by which, the learned Judge, after holding that the impugned direction given by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Chennai-17 cannot be given effect to for want of jurisdiction, allowed the writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Driving School Urimaiyalargal Sangam.2. The learned Special Government Pleader, by taking us through the letter of the Joint Transport Commissioner, Chennai-17, dated 17.7.1997 and letter of the Commissioner, Chennai-17, dated 19.7.1997 as well as Section 9(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 11 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Rule 14 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, would submit that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.3. In order to appreciate the said contention, it is relevant to refer the brief facts:Tamil Nadu Driving School Urimaiyalargal Sangam filed ...
Loordhu Ammal Educational Trust, Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. the Univers ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC246
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner applied for grant of recognition for starting a new self- financing Education College in the name and style of 'Our Lady College of Education' at Maduravoyal, Chennai - 102, for conducting the B.Ed. Degree Course for the academic year 2004-2005. The National Council for Teacher Education, Bangalore, granted recognition by its order dated 2.11.2004.2. Thereafter, on 3.11.2004 the petitioner requested the respondent for grant of affiliation, but the respondent by the impugned order dated 22.11.2004 asked the petitioner to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Government of Tamil Nadu for starting of new self-financing college in the name and style of 'Our Lady College of Education' at Maduravoyal, Chennai - 95, which would enable the respondent to proceed further in this matter.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after the National Council for Teacher Education Act has come into force, Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Pr...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G.V. Venugopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Mad)661; [2005]273ITR307(Mad)
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the IT Act (in short 'the Act') against the order of the Tribunal, Madras 'C Bench. .2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. The substantial question of law arising in this appeal is as follows:'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is eligible to claim simultaneous benefit under Section 10(10C) as well as Section 89(1) in respect of the compensation received under the voluntary retirement scheme?'The AO disallowed the relief under Section 89(1) of the Act in addition to the exemption allowed under Section 10(10C) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) held in favour of the assessee, and the Tribunal also has confirmed the order of CIT(A). Hence, this appeal.4. The facts in this appeal are that for the asst. yr. 2001-2002, the assessee, G.V. Venugopal, filed return of income on 5th July, 2001 declaring the total income of Rs. 3,33,280. The AO held that ...
Cit Vs. G.V. Venugopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN784(Mad)
The Honourable The Chief Justice)This appeal is filed under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras C Bench.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. The substantial question of law arising in this appeal is as follows :'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is eligible to claim simultaneous benefit under section 10(10C) as well as section 89(1) in respect of the compensation received under the voluntary retirement scheme?'The assessing officer disallowed the relief under section 89(1) of the Act in addition to the exemption allowed under section 10(10C) of the Act. However, the CIT (A) held in favour of the assessee, and the Tribunal also has confirmed the order of CIT (A).Hence, this appeal.4. The facts in this appeal are that for the assessment year 2001-02, the assessee G.V. Venugopal filed Return of Income on 5-7-20...
S.S.i. Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Chennai)1049
expenditureAs per the terms of the agreement entered into between the assessee and the government schools, the assessee was to provide computer education in these schools for which necessary infrastructure had to be provided by the assessee. In the agreement it was clearly stated that equipments leased by the assessee shall not be taken away from the training centre during/after the contract period. For this purpose, assessee installed wooden partitions, furniture and other structures in these schools. The AO treated such installation expenditure as business expenditure being wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business of the assessee. The CIT invoked section 263 and allowed 1/5th depreciation for a period of 5 years. Held: The expenditure incurred by the assessee did not result in creation of any asset or benefit of enduring nature, therefore, allowance of the said expenditure in its entirety was neither erroneous in law nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.Revision und...
Rama Muthuramalingam, State Propaganda Committee Member Vs. the Deputy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad1; 2004(5)CTC554
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 23.11.2004 in W.P.No.34001 of 2004 in Rama. Muthuramalingam v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mannargudi, Tiruvarur District and Anr., : (2005)1MLJ1 .2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. The appellant claiming to be a member of the State Propaganda Committee of the Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam, a non-political party, whose main aim is said to be the abolition of the caste system in the country, has filed the writ petition.3. The appellant by application dated 1.11.2004 sought permission of the 2nd respondent, the Inspector of Police, Mannargudi Police Station, Tiruvarur District to conduct a public meeting on 16.11.2004 to propagate the principles of the Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam at Panthaladi Kilpuram, Mannargudi. However, by order dated 15.11.2004, the 1st respondent refused permissio...
Om Sindhoori Capital Investments Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-2004
Reported in: [2005]274ITR427(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. By order dated September 16, 2002, this court admitted the above tax case appeal on the following questions of law:'1. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Explanation 4A to Section 43(1) which came into force with effect from October 1, 1996, would be applicable to prior period transactions which has taken place during August, 1995, relevant to the assessment year 1996-97 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the WDV of the assets in the books of the transferor for computing the depreciation allowance in the hands of the appellant when the valuation report regarding the market value of the asset has not been disputed and the sale consideration has been accepted in the assessment of the transferor ?'2. We are of the view that it will suffice to consider the first question. The assessment year involved is 1996-97 and the relevant previous y...
Ashok Kumar Vs. K. Gunasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: [2006]132CompCas445(Mad)
R. Banumathi, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated July 10,1997, in C.C. No. 6 of 1997 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Erode.2. The appellant/complainant is the proprietor of Shiv Agencies dealing with textile business situated at Easwaran Koil Street, Erode. The respondent/accused has been a customer of the complainant. The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 91,000 from one Dilip Shivani on August 14, 1996, and for the abovesaid liability, the respondent/accused had issued three post dated cheques-one cheque dated October 2,1996 for Rs. 35,000; the second cheque dated October 3, 1996, for Rs. 35,000 ; the third cheque dated October 7,1996, for Rs. 21,000. The said Dilip Shivani endorsed the cheques to Maya Shivani, proprietor of Shiv Agencies. When the cheques were presented for collection on October 24, 1996, through UCO Bank, Erode Branch, it were returned as 'insufficiency of funds' on October 24, 1996. Notice was sent to the respon...
M. Suryakumar Vs. Mani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC591
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 236 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Erode, is the appellant in the above appeal.2. In respect of the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that look place on 5.4.1988, he prayed for a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the injured claimant was himself examined as P.W. 1, while the O.P. Chit issued by the Government Hospital, Erode was marked as Ex. P. 1 and the First Information Report was marked as Ex. P.2. On the side of the Transport Corporation, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W. 1. The Tribunal, after holding that the claimant had failed to establish that the accident was caused due to the negligent act of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus and in the absence of any evidence to prove the disablement of the claimant, dismissed the claim petition. Hence the appeal.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the contesting second respondent-Transport Cor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »