Chennai Court June 2004 Judgments
thenamal Chhajjer Vs. Joint Commissioner of I.T.,
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Chennai)449
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the C.I.T.(Appeals)-X, Chennai dated 15.12.2003, upholding the order of penalty under Section 271-D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the Act) for contravention of provisions of Section 269(SS) of the Act levied by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-XII, Chennai.2. The appellant-assessee (herein after called as assessee), has raised four grounds in this appeal and the only issue arising, out of these grounds, is against confirmation of penalty levied under Section 271D of the Act for the assessment year 1994-95 amounting to Rs. 13,35,000/-.3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and doing financing business. For the relevant assessment year 1994-95, he declared a total income at Rs. 43,040/- vide retain filed on 26.10.1994. A survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted by the Assistant Director of Income-tax (Investigation)(hereinafter referred to as ADI...
Tag this Judgment!The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excises (then Asst. Collector of Cen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC19; 2004(172)ELT154(Mad)
R. Banumathi, J. 1. Aggrieved over the acquittal of the Accused for various offences under the Central Excise Act, 1944, (relating to different periods), the Department - Central Excise has preferred these appeals.2.Points arising for determination in all the four appears are one and the same. Hence, all the appeals were taken up and heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.3.The facts which led to the prosecution against the Respondent/Accused could briefly be stated thus:-A-1 firm is holder of Central Excise license for processing cotton fabrics falling under Tariff Item No. 19(1)(b) scheduled to the Central Excise and Salt Act. A-2 is the partner and manager of A-1 firm. A-3 is one of the partners of M/s. Akshaya Hantdex, Madras-7 who procured cotton fabrics from various parties and processed the same in the machinery of A-1 firm. During May 1984, the CBI Officers, Madras searched and seized records including Central Excise statutory records from the factory premis...
Tag this Judgment!Subashini Vs. K. Sekar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC802
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife praying to withdraw HMOP No.19 of 1999 pending on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore and transfer the same to the Court of Family Judge, Chennai.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.3. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of this petition, it comes to be known that the petitioner wife having been chased out of her matrimonial home, has sought asylum by her parents in Chennai and is staying in the address offered in the petition; that it is practically not feasible for her to go to Cuddalore and contest the divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband, who is stationed at Cuddalore to suit his convenience. The petitioner would further express her inability to spend that much of money to travel and for her other expenses. On such grounds, the petitioner has come forward to file the above petition s...
Tag this Judgment!Venugopal @ Alagarsamy (Died) and ors. Vs. Bajanai Alagarsamy and Karu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ362
V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2002 rendered in A.S.No.40 of 1991 by the Court Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 5.3.1990 rendered in O.S.No.531 of 1988 by the Court of Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.2. Tracing the history of the above second appeal coming to be preferred by the plaintiff in the suit, it comes to be known that the appellant herein has filed the suit for recovery of possession, permanent injunction restraining the defendants from further burrowing the schedule of properties and for such other reliefs.3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule mentioned properties and the defendants are making bricks and selling them; that the defendants approached the plaintiff for getting the schedule mentioned lands for making bricks; that on 14.11.1984, the plaintiff and the defendants entered into an agreement as per the ter...
Tag this Judgment!Vaithinattar and Janardhanan Vs. Sakkubai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad419
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1992 rendered in A.S.No.123 of 1992 by the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.01.1990 rendered in O.S.No.464 of 1982 by the Court of Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi.2. Tracing the history of the above second appeal coming to be preferred by the plaintiff in the suit, what comes to be known is that the respondent has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, wherein the suit property originally belonged to one Fathima Bi; that the plaintiff purchased the suit property with defined boundaries from the original owner, Fathima Bi under a registered sale deed dated 22.09.1969 for a valuable consideration of Rs.1275/-; that on the date of purchase, the plaintiff took possession of the suit property and is in enjoyment of the same; that the plaintiff would produce a registration copy of the sale deed dated 22.09...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: [2005]274ITR482(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following common question of law to this court for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on the activities of the assessee, viz., mining granite from quarries and exporting them after cutting, polishing, etc., which tantamount to manufacture for the purpose of Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessments of the assessee for the two years in question were completed by the Assessing Officer allowing the claim of the assessee with regard to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Commissioner of Income-tax, exercising the power of revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, passed a consolidated order dated March 14, 1990, holding that the asse...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Ramu (Died) and ors. Vs. Mrs. Rukmani Sundaram and Mrs. Selvi Cha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC784; (2004)3MLJ160
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J. 1. The revision petitioners are the landlords, who lost the case before the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in securing eviction of the respondents/tenants from the petition non-residential premises on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.2. The landlords have filed the Rent Control Original Petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') stating that the properties described in schedules 'A' and 'B' to the petition are situated in No.2 Road, Mayiladuthurai Town. The immovable property in 'A' schedule is a theatre and its adjuncts and so is a non-residential premises. The movables in 'B' schedule are the furniture, fans, electric lights and fittings etc., which form part of the fixtures in 'A' schedule theatre. The revision petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of the first revision petitioner and the revision petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Malik Batcha (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Syed Ahmed Batcha,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ480
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J. 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below has filed this appeal and on his death, his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 10. This appeal is directed against the dismissal of the suit as confirmed by the first Appellate Court in A.S. No. 236 of 1990 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Madurai. 2. The parties have been arrayed as described in the suit. 3. The ejectment suit was filed on 15.02.1982 with the following plaint averments. The plaintiff is the younger brother of the first defendant. The suit property of 44 cents comprised in T.S. No. 802/5/2 is situate at Ismailpuram 8th lane, Munichalai, Madurai Town, and it originally belonged to Majan Beebi Sahiba, paternal grandmother of the plaintiff, Syed Malik Batcha. The suit property was partitioned on 30.9.1967 between the co-owners, viz., Syed Malik Batcha, the plaintiff, Ameena Bibi Sahiba, Fathima Bibi Sahiba, A.Syed Khader Batcha, A. Syed Sha...
Tag this Judgment!Perumal Naicker Vs. Rathina Naicker and Jayarama Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad492; 2004(5)CTC656; (2004)3MLJ359
V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The above Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.8.1992 rendered in A.S.No.37 of 1988 by the Court of Subordinate Judge,Kancheepuram thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.7.1987 rendered in O.S.No.215 of 1981 by the Court of Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram.2. Tracing the history of the above second appeal coming to be preferred by the defendant in the suit, it comes to be known that the respondents herein have filed the suit on their behalf and on behalf of the villagers of Perumbakkam praying for declaration and permanent injunction as against the appellant herein on averments such as that the defendant's grand-mother was granted patta for four cents of land in S.No.132; that after the death of his grand-mother, the defendant put up a construction in a larger extent than that of the four cents land adjoining the land in S.No.153/2 encroaching upon the extent of 27' x 15' pathway lying on the South thereby obstructin...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyanar Raja and Velayuthan Raja Vs. Periya Thalaimalaiyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad488
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.1993 made in A.S.No.62 of 1991 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge of Srivilliputhur, thereby reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 16.04.1991 made in O.S.No.183 of 1988 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.2. Tracing the history of the above second appeal coming to be preferred by the defendants in O.S.No.183 of 1988, it comes to be known that the plaintiff/respondent has filed the suit for bare injunction. The suit I schedule property, which belonged to the defendants was acquired by the Government for the purpose of Harijan Welfare and allotted to the landless persons by an award No.11 of 1965 dated 08.10.1965; that the amount for the land was also deposited in the Court; that the II schedule property is a part of the I schedule property; that the Tahsildar has granted patta in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the II schedule property on 29.12.1965;...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »