Chennai Court July 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.
Karpoora Sundarapandian Ramalakshmi Ammal Kalvi Valarchi Kuzhu, (Educa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ185
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 25.3.2004 made in unnumbered I.A. in D. No. 1745 of 2004 in O.S. No. 108 of 1998 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga.2. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision Petition coming to be filed before this Court, what comes to be known is that the petitioners 1 and 2 herein have filed the above suit in O.S. No. 108 of 1998 before the lower Court seeking to declare that the Educational Agency constituted by the Plaintiff on 27.1.1998 is validly constituted Educational Agency of the schedule mentioned institution, in the alternative direction for a decree providing for a scheme of management wherein all the members of Founders are duly and properly represented in proportion to their contribution made originally and providing for a rotational management of the schedule mentioned institution and for costs. Pending the suit, the third petitioner herein who is the 7th d...
V.K.K. Nair Vs. Mr. D. Shittal Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC383; 2004(5)CTC734
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 31.7.2002 made in I.A.No.6778 of 2002 in O.S.No.6037 of 2001 by the Court of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.2. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision Petition, what comes to be known is that the respondent herein has filed the above suit in O.S.No.6037 of 2001 for recovery of a sum of Rs.37,500/= together with interest at the rate of 30% p.a. and for costs; that the petitioner herein, who is the second defendant in the above suit, has filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.6778 of 2002 under Order 37 Rule 3(5) C.P.C seeking leave to defend the suit; that the lower Court has dismissed the above application on 31.7.2002 on the ground that the petitioner/defendant has not raised any triable issue in the suit. It is only testifying the validity of the said fair and decretal order, the petitioner/defendant has come forward to file the above civil revisio...
F.F.E. Minerals India (P) Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Chennai)907
1. By this miscellaneous petition, the assessee seeks rectification of the error in the order of this Tribunal dt. 12th Dec., 2002, read with order dt. 24th Sept., 2003, in the aforesaid appeals.2. The petition of the assessee is that the above two appeals were disposed of by the common order dt. 12th Dec., 2002, by the Tribunal.The assessee was in appeal against the disallowance of claim for warranty, guarantee and liquidated damages for the asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99 amounting to Rs. 74,43,308 and Rs. 3,14,77,555, respectively. The Hon'ble Tribunal upheld the order of the authorities below and confirmed the disallowance after giving a finding in paras 11 to 14. In passing the order, the Tribunal had committed a mistake in both facts and law. It was pointed out that the Tribunal had given the findings in para 14 which is extracted hereunder : "14. In these two cases the assessee-company has claimed for damages as a deduction in computing its income as soon as the delay in the sup...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Sulochana Legal Rep. of Late P. Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC410; [2005]272ITR529(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras Bench 'D' dated 21.05.2003 in I.T.A. Nos. 1619,1620,1621 and 1622/98, holding that the reassessments for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1977-78, in the case of the assessee was completed by the assessing officer without reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment. 2. The appellant/revenue raised the following substantial question of law.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the reassessments for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1977-78 in the case of the assessee were completed by the assessing officer without reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and therefore the reassessments are liable to be set aside?'3.1. The original assessment for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1977-78 were sought to be reopened ...
Asha Varghese Vs. Leelama Pailo and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC536
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed praying to direct the respondents 4, 5 and 6 herein to produce the body of the petitioner's minor female child Ashmin Elizabeth Biju, aged about 21/2 years old from the illegal custody and illegal detention by respondents 1 to 3 herein before this Court and to restore the custody of the child Ashmin Elizabeth Biju, to the petitioner.2. Today, when the above petition came up before this Court, we arc able to find from the records that notices have been served on all, excepting the 7th respondent herein, who is the husband of the petitioner, who is said to have been in abroad.3. Today, not only the petitioner, but all the respondents, including the 7th respondent, appeared before this Court along with the child, the custody of which is the issue before us.4. Prior to going into the merits of the ease, it is always necessary to solve the legality of the problem, in which event, there would not be any necessity to go into t...
Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Agri-horticultural Society
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: [2005]273ITR198(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Heard. The appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'D' dated 26.06.2003 holding that the respondent/assessee is a charitable institution within the meaning of 2(15) of the Income Tax Act 1961, as they are engaged in commercial activity by growing plants, selling seeds and getting corpus donation by using the premises for shooting movie, TV serials etc. and therefore was not entitled for the exemption under Sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act. 2. The issue is relating to the assessment year 2000-2001. The assessee is a society claiming the status as association of persons, who are engaged in the business of purchase and sale of Agri-Horticulture products like manure, seeds, garden implements, flower pots, etc. having engaged more than 259 members and 54 employees. The respondent/society was established, registered and functioning for the charitable purpose within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Income Ta...
Chinnammal Vs. Kuppusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC794; (2004)3MLJ518
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The plaintiffs 2 to 6 in O.S. No. 841 of 1981 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Thiruchengode, are the revision petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. This revision is directed against the dismissal of R.E.P. No. 59 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruchengode.2. The revision petitioners, viz., plaintiffs 2 to 6, are the widow, daughter and sons of deceased first plaintiff Perianna Nadar. Perianna Nadar filed suit in O.S. No. 841 of 1981 against the respondent/defendant for specific performance of contract of sale pursuant to the agreement dated 15.7.1978 entered into between them, after causing lawyer's notice dated 04.02.1979 to which no reply was sent by the defendant. Though it appears that the defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement, he remained ex parte at the time of trial, which resulted in ex parte decree dated 11.02.1983. Originally, the suit was filed in O.S.No. 661 of 1979 on the file of the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.S.C. Shoes Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Mad)487; [2005]275ITR46(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'C', dated April 10, 2001 in I. T. A. No. 1489 of 1993. The following substantial question of law was raised for consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest on deposit with the S. B. I. should be treated as income derived from an industrial undertaking for the purpose of relief under Section 80HHC ?'2. In brief, the assessee-company has claimed Rs. 44,09,187 as deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which includes interest on deposits of Rs. 2,19,088 received from the State Bank of India, for the assessment year 1990-91. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction.3. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), wherein the Commissioner, by an order dated February 19, 1993, allowed the appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kamala Selvaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2004
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)242; [2005]273ITR154(Mad)
1. In pursuance of the directions by this court in T. C. P. No. 283 of 1997 dated March 9, 1999, the matter was referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the following questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in treating the nursing home building as a plant entitled for extra shift allowance ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing extra shift depreciation allowance on equipment installed in the nursing home premises 1'2. The matter relates to the assessment year 1983-84.3. The assessee, being a doctor, is running a nursing home under the banner 'G. G. Hospital'. The assessee for the assessment year 1983-84 claimed extra shift allowance, treating the building of the nursing home as a 'plant'. The Assessing Officer, considering the activities carried on in the building, concluded that the nursing home could not be treated a...
Sri Murugan theatre Vs. Entertainment Tax Officer (Dcto) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC227(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of the second respondent in D.Dis JJ2/89973/96 and 89974/96 dated February 17, 1997 confirming the order of the first respondent in its E.T.No. 1/85-86/92-93 dated November 13, 1995.2. The petitioners run a cinema theatre. They are required to pay entertainment tax under the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax . Act, 1939, hereinafter called 'the Act'. Permit in form IV under the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Rules, 1939 has been issued to them. As per the procedure, the petitioners have to submit weekly returns reporting the payments for each class during the week with proof of payment of tax on such collections. The petitioners claim that they have submitted such weekly returns without any default. While the matter stood thus, the petitioners were served with show cause notice purporting to be Under Section 7-B of the Act proposing to levy tax and penalty for the year 1992-93. In the said show cause notice, it ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »