Chennai Court February 2004 Judgments
S.P.G. Ramasamy Nadar and Sons Vs. Commercial Tax Officer-iii and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: [2004]136STC606(Mad)
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The petitioners are dealers in cardamom, chillies, etc., and they effected purchases of cardamom from other State dealers, within the State dealers and from non-dealers in this State. There are direct exports, inter-State sales, inter-State consignment sales, sales to local dealers and sales to local consumers. Cardamom was taxable at the point of first sale up to March 31, 1990 and thereafter the point of taxation in respect of cardamom was shifted to the point of last purchase. However, the petitioners failed to report the last purchase turnover of cardamom in the monthly returns and also to pay the tax thereon. They only furnished the turnover of cardamom sold to local consumers, but, only in response to a notice, they disclosed the turnover of cardamom at Rs. 18,73,621 in the form of a statement before the assessing officer. Tax was paid by the petitioners only after the final assessment order was passed. A notice was issued to the petitioners ca...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Home (Police V) Depart ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ162
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos. 17639 to 17660 of 2001, 17822 to 17826, 17827 to 17830 18349 to 18356 and 17899 to 17903 OF 2003 have been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, wherein, the Tribunal directed that the applicants in the Original Applications before it, who appeared for selection as Sub-Inspectors of Police from open market should be selected and appointed as Sub-Inspectors of police if they fulfill the other requirements of satisfaction of antecedents etc., and in respect of certain other applicants who appeared for selection, while serving in the Department as Police Constables and Head Constables should be selected and appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police in the same manner. As regards the applicant in O.A. No. 10161 of 1998, the Tribunal held that the tests including Physical Efficiency Test shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. R. Imbavalli Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Chennai)352
1. All the above five IT appeals, three by the assessee, and two by the Department, are arising out of the order of learned CIT(A)-X, Madras 34, dt. 26th March, 2003, as per relevant assessment years given above.2. The only issue in the appeals of the assessee is regarding the adoption of five per cent of the net profit of the turnover for arriving at the income for the relevant assessment years. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-assessee is the sole propietrix of the firm, M/s Sri Ganesh Electronics, Chennai 600 013.The assessee deals in retail business of electronic appliances, TV, VCRs, refrigerators and similar other home appliances. A survey under Section 133A was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 3rd April, 1998. During the course of survey, statements of various business activities were recorded and books of accounts for the asst, yr. 1997-98 were impounded. While framing assessment, the AO rejected the books of accounts and applied GP rate ...
Tag this Judgment!Baby Vs. Thiagarajan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC331; II(2004)DMC408
A.K. Rajan, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of acquittal of the respondents passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam. The offence alleged against the accused is punishable under Sections 494 r/w 109, 506(i), 344 and 385 I.P.C.2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows: A.3, Eswari gave a complaint to the Vellakoil Police Station stating that she developed relationship with P.W.3, which resulted her becoming pregnant. Therefore, she gave a complaint to arrange for the marriage between P.W.3 and A.3. A.4 , Sub Inspector of Police at that time compelled P.W.3 to marry A.3 and their marriage took place in the Police Station. Thereafter , the marriage was registered at the Sub Registrar office also. After coming to know of this, P.W.1, gave a complaint against A.1 father of A3 and A.2, mother of A.3. A private complaint was also registered and taken on file. Charges were framed against the four accused for the offence punishable under Sections 344, 385, 494 r/w 109 I.P.C....
Tag this Judgment!Karuppiah Vs. the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC687; II(2004)DMC546
ORDERP. Shanmugham, J.1. The sole accused in S.C.No. 52/1993, on the file of the learned District Sessions Court, Dindigul, Anna District, Dindigul is the appellant. The appellant is referred as accused for convenience.2. The accused was charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having murdered Mookkammal, his wife, on 7.9.1992, 7.00 a.m., at Door No. 2/284, Harijan Colony, Moongilpatty village and so he was found guilty and convicted for the said offence and sentenced to life imprisonment, in the judgment dated 26.4.1994. The above Appeal is against the said judgment.3. The brief facts, as per the case of the prosecution, are as follows:--The accused was not living with his wife, the deceased and they were living separately. However, suspecting the fidelity of the estranged wife, the accused is said to have stabbed the deceased in the house of her father, P.W.1, at 7.00 a.m. on 7.9.1992 and she died instantaneously. P.W.1, the father of the decea...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Central theatre Vs. Controlling Authority, Payment of Gr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ958Mad
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The management has filed this writ petition against the order passed by the first respondent. The second respondent was an employee under the petitioner. He claimed that he was entitled to payment of gratuity and it was quantified at Rs. 8,505. Against that this writ petition has been filed.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is absolutely no consideration by the first respondent regarding the act of moral turpitude and whether or not it constituted an act of. moral turpitude so as to disentitle the petitioner from claiming the gratuity has not been considered.3. It was submitted that the first respondent had contended himself with merely relying on Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Kolar v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bangalore and Ors. , to award the payment of gratuity.4. The learned counsel for the second respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the petitioner had framed charges against the second respondent for certain ...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Franco Tossi Ingegneria, S.P.A.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Chennai)137
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-VII, Chennai dt. 13th Nov., 1996. It relates to the asst. yr.1994-95.2. The issue in dispute is on the application of provisions of Section 44BBB of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee received payment from Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC) under a contract. The assessee is a non-resident foreign company registered in Itlay entered into contract with NLC, a public sector undertaking for Government of India. This contract relates to unloading, erection, testing and commissioning of 3 Nos. of steam turbine generators with accessories.3. For this assessment year the assessee submitted its return of income on 21st July, 1994, declaring the income as NIL. The assessee has been submitting the return of income since the asst. yr. 1982-83. By applying Rule 10 of the IT Rules, 1962, the AO has been taking a final stand from the asst. yrs. 1982-83 to 1993-94 that the profit or loss will be ascertained and assessed on the compl...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation Vs. P. Issac Jebam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ120
ORDERSardar Zackria Hussain, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli in fixing the half yearly property tax for the house bearing door No. C-23, 24th Cross Street, Maharajanagar, Tirunelveli, owned by the respondent herein at Rs. 488/- from 1.10.1998 by allowing the Appeal Against Taxation Appeal No.4 of 1999 preferred by the respondent herein against the Appeal No. 259 of 1999 dated 20.9.1999 on the file of the Taxation Appellate Tribunal, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation.2 During the pendency of the Appeal Against Taxation Appeal No. 4 of 1999, the owner of the property, viz., Tmt.Susila Issac Jebamani died and the respondent herein has been added as her legal representative.3. Tmt.Susila Issac Jebamani was a retired teacher and she was the owner of the said premises. After her retirement, she settled in the said house in 1996 and before that, the house was let out to tenant till 1993-1994 and the half yearly t...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmughavelu Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2731
R. Banumathi, J. 1. Accused in C.C.64/95 on the file of Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramnad is the appellant. By judgment dated 27.2.97 trial court has convicted the Appellant/Accused for Dowry Harassment and demand of dowry-498(A) I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and one year respectively. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Prosecution case: P.W.1-Shanmugavalli is the daughter of P.W.2-Velu. P.W.1 and the accused got married on 24.5.91. At the time of marriage P.W.1 was given Seer Varisai of five sovereigns of gold and 1-1/2 acres of land with other necessary household utensils. P.W.1 lived happily with the accused for three years in Ambedkar Colony. Thereafter the accused was demanding further dowry amount of Rs.5,000/- and five sovereign of jewels. Father of P.W.1-P.W.2 could not afford to give dowry amount and jewels. Since demand of the accused was n...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax-ii Vs. Periyar District Co-op. Milk Pro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Mad)272; [2004]266ITR705(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J. 1.This appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Respondent is a Co-operative Society. For the Assessment Year 1991-92, the respondent Society filed its return declaring a loss of Rs.80,63,122/- and claimed the benefit of carry forward of the said loss. Subsequently, a revised return was filed after the final audit of accounts indicating higher loss. The Assessing Officer restricted the carry forward of loss as per the original return. The Assessee / Respondent filed appeal. The Appellate Authority while holding that the revised return was a valid return, observed that, for the purpose of carry forward of loss, the only return filed under Section 139(3) can be taken into account. Accordingly, the order of the Assessing Officer was confirmed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that once a revised return was fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »