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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kwality Textile Associate Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: [2005]272ITR371(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras Bench 'C' dated 03.07.2003 in I.T.A.364/95. The following substantial questions of law are raised for consideration:-1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the technical and engineering fees received by the assessee is not exigible to tax in view of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the payment for technical and engineering services rendered outside India would constitute royalty and is to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement since the assessee had no permanent establishment in India?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right...
C. Manohar Vs. B.R. Poornima
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)56; III(2005)BC600; 2004CriLJ4436
R. Banumathi, J. 1. The complainant in C. C. No. 191 of 1996, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur is the appellant. By the order (dated 20-3-1997), the trial Magistrate has acquitted the respondent/ accused of the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the N.I. Act). Aggrieved over the order of acquittal, the complainant has come forward with this appeal. 2. This case arises in a strange situation and facts. The Advocate is fastening the liability under Section 138, N. I. Act on his client alleging that the amount is payable towards him as legal expenses. 3. The facts which led to the present appeal could be stated thus :--Husband of the accused died on 13-6-1992 in a road accident, that took place on 10-6-1992, leaving her and a male child. The accused engaged the complainant to file a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 2339 of 1992. Subsequently, mother-in-law of the accused also filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 246 of 1993 in which also, this ...
Sri Murugan Financiers Vs. P.V. Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)33; III(2005)BC565; 2005CriLJ269
R. Banumathi, J.1. Complainant in C.C. No. 262 of 1993 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Arani is the appellant. By the judgment (dated 15-10-1996), the Judicial Magistrate, Arani has convicted the respondent/accused under Section 138 N.1. Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also imposing fine of Rs. 5000/-. Aggrieved over the Conviction, the accused has preferred appeal before the District Court, Thiruvannamalai in C.A. No. 54 of 1996. By the judgment (dated 22-8-1997) the Additional Sessions Judge has reversed the verdict of Conviction and acquitted the respondent/accused. As against the Order of acquittal, the Complainant has preferred this Appeal.2. Facts which led to the present Appeal could briefly be stated thus :Case of complainant is that the accused is bound to pay Rs. 4,65,000/- to the complainant, for which the accused had issued a Cheque bearing No. CQ 132675 dated 155-1993 drawn on the Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Arani. The ac...
P. Viswanathan Vs. the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ595; [2005]141STC88(Mad)
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. This order shall dispose of the above two writ petitions, since the petitioner is one and the same, except the period of assessment.2. The petitioner was the proprietor of Vijayalakshmi Blue Metal and the business was carried on at No. 54/1, Mettu Edayanpatti, Adunkkanparai Post, Vellore Taluk. The petitioner started his business in blue metal elsewhere in the year 1991, but he did not obtain any registration under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 since his turnover was less than Rs. 1 lakh.3. A case study has been conducted at his place of business on April 28, 1992 by the Junior Research Officer (CT), Vellore, and the Statistical Inspector (CT), Vellore. On the basis of the case study, after the issue of notice, the petitioner was assessed to tax, for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, imposing penalty also. As per the assessment order, the petitioner has not paid the sales tax, resulting issue of form I distraint notice dated February 26,...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Trichy Distilleries Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: [2005]272ITR227(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras Bench 'C' dated 11.09.2002 in I.T.A. No. 2135/MDS/93. 2. The assessee is a widely held company. For the Assessment year 1988-89, the assessee filed a return of income on 28.7.1988 declaring a total income of Rs. 30,84,820/-. The assessment was completed on 29.12.1988 determining the total income at Rs. 92.02 lakhs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax Tamilnadu - II, exercising power under Section 263 of the Income-Tax Act had set aside the original assessment dated 28.7.1988 by giving directions to the assessing officer to reconsider the working of relief/deduction under Section 32AB of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income -Tax (Appeals), who held that the assessing officer has acted upon the direction issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the Commissioner of I...
Cit Vs. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: [2006]152TAXMAN344(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.Heard. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench C dated 25-7-2003 in I.T.A. 19/95. The following substantial questions of law are raised for consideration:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Incometax Tribunal is right in holding that the excess claim of depreciation amounting Rs. 26,37,05,933 was allowable for the whole year eventhough the machinery was put to use and worked for 9 days only ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that full depreciation is allowable without considering the Note 4 under Schedule XIV of the Companies Act, whereby it has been clearly stated that depreciation allowable from the date of installation and usage only ?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing full depreciation for whole year while computing income and profits which would not ...
Cit Vs. Minor R. Ganesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)456
N Kaawadasan, J :The above appeal is filed as against the order dated 22-5-2003 of the Tribunal, C Bench, Chennai.2. The respondent, who is an assessee, is an individual engaged in the business of plying of buses. For the assessment year 1990-91, the assessee/respondent filed his return of income admitting a total income of Rs. 1,08,900. The return was processed and the assessee/respondent was asked to reconcile the opening capital of Rs. 1,53,033.25 with the closing balance as on 31-3-1987. The representative of the assessee/respondent has filed a reconciliation statement, but however, the assessing officer found the same as erroneous. Since the assessee/respondent has not filed cash flow statement, the assessing officer himself has prepared a cash flow statement for the period from 1-4-1987 to 31-3-1990, and called upon the assessee/respondent to file his objections, if any. Thereafter, the assessing officer has made an addition of Rs. 2,40,725.37 towards the drawings for personal ex...
Packirisamy Vs. State of Pondicherry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ467
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 35 of 1997 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal. By the Judgment (dated 19-9-1997) learned Sessions Judge has convicted by Appellant/Accused under Sections 498-A and 306, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for each of the offences.2. Case of the prosecution could briefly be stated thus :Victim-Adhliakshmi is the daughter of PW-1-Thangaraj and PW-3-Santha. PW-4-Kalyani is the mother of the accused. The marriage between the accused and the victim-Adhilakshmi was solemnised on 7-6-1990. The couple have a female child by name Nithya born on 21-7-1991. The accused and the vic-tim-Adhilakshmi were living at door No. 12, Thittacherry Salai, T.R. Pattinam.3. While the accused was living with his wlfe-Adhilakshmi, he developed illicit intimacy with PW-6-Meena alias Meenakshi and was keeping her as his concubine. Both of them were living together at door No. 18, Pillait...
Krishnasamy and anr. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1240
M. Chockalingam, J.1. The appellants, who were ranked as A-1 and A-2 and tried along with the third accused, since acquitted by the lower Court, stood charged, tried and found guilty, as stated hereunder, have brought forth these appeals.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Accused Charges Guity Punishment-------------------------------------------------------------------------------A-1 120(b), 364, 302, 302 364 10 years R.I. & fine of Rs. 1,000/- read with 109, in default, 3 months R.I. 120(b) 10 years R.I. & fine of Rs. 1,000/- read with in default, 3 months R. I. 302 302 Life imprisonment & fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, 3 months R.I. 201 3 years R.I. & fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, 3 months R.I.A-2 120(b), 364, 302, 302 364 10 years R.I. & fine of Rs. 1,000/- read with 109, 201 in default, 3 months R.I. 120(b) 10 years R.I. & fine of Rs. 1,000/- read with in default, 3 months R. I. 302 302 Life imprisonment &...
T. Gunasundari Vs. B. Chitra and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ567
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the first respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 65 of 2001 on the file of the Dindigul District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul thereby testifying the validity of the docket order dated 15.7.2003 passed by the said Forum thereby returning a petition filed to set aside the ex-parte decretal order on ground that there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to set aside the ex-parte order further directing the petitioner to move the regular appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai.2. On the part of the petitioner, she would urge that the District Consumer Redressal Forum does have the power to set aside the exparte decree, which is an incidental proceeding arising therefor. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would point out that the District Consumer Redressal Forum is vested with the powers of a civil Court while trying the complaint and that th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »