Chennai Court September 2004 Judgments
A.R. Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Chennai)85
1. All these three appeals filed by the assessee arise out of different orders of the CIT(A) wherein certain common grounds are involved.Hence, these appeals were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The first common ground in ITA Nos. 532/Mds/2001, 893 & 894/ Mds/2003 is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO treating the interest income from fixed deposit under the head 'Income from other sources'.3. The assessee has received interest on bank deposits for the asst.yrs. 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and the assessee has treated this interest as income from business for the reason that the FD was made in the bank for the purpose of obtaining letter of credit as the main business of the assessee was import of timber and allied products and for obtaining a letter of credit, the bankers of the assessee, viz., Bank of Baroda, have insisted on margin money for which the assessee was...
Tag this Judgment!N. Duraikannu Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Union Territory of Pondicherry ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ489
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 11165 of 1989 dated 11.9.1998. The appellant was the holder of F.L.II licence in No. 13/F.L.II/88-89 for selling Indian or foreign liquor or both issued by the Government of Pondicherry for consumption combined with the supply of meals and eatables at the premises mentioned in the licence for the year 1988-89. There was a raid by the Excise Squad of Pondicherry on 11.8.1988 in the premises of the petitioner and the Excise Squad seized certain amount of illicit arrack and other materials from one Arulraj, the son of the appellant which were found to be in his possession as detailed in the order cancelling the licence. A case was registered against Arulraj, son of the appellant herein on the ground that he was in illegal possession of the articles and the said Arulraj also admitted the offence and at his request, the offence was compounded. A show-cause notice was issued to th...
Tag this Judgment!Tarajyot Polymers Limited Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: [2005]140STC239(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. In all these cases, the order passed detaining the goods by the first respondent and the refusal of the Taxation Special Tribunal* to interfere with the said orders are put in issue.2. As the import of the goods, the reason for passing the detention order, the ultimate order passed by the first respondent, the refusal to interfere with the same by the Special Tribunal Printed at page 244 infra. and the argument assailing the said orders on the part of the petitioners and argument on behalf of the Revenue for sustaining the said orders are one and the same, all the cases are taken up together for consideration.3. The typical case taken up for consideration is W.P. No. 26751 of 2003. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at Calcutta, branches at Secunderabad, Pondicherry and Bangalore, inter alia, involved in trading of plastic granules and are assessees on the file of the Assistant Commercial Tax Office...
Tag this Judgment!The Mahalakshmi Trading House, Rep. by Its Proprietor Vs. the Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC101; (2005)1MLJ485
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above writ petition is filed for issuance of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents 1 to 4 pending with the order of the 1st respondent dated 19.11.2003 passed in O.P.917 of 2003 confirming the order of the second respondent Joint Commissioner (C.T) Chennai No. RPJJ1/116 dated 6.6.2003 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent in particular the 4th respondent to refund the amount of Advance Sales Tax of Rs. 9,16,630 and compounding fee of Rs. 10,000 with 18% interest.2. In this writ petition, the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal dated 19.11.2003 made in O.P. No. 917 of 2003 confirming the order of the lower authorities imposing advance sales tax of Rs. 9.16,630 and compounding fee of Rs. 10,000 is put in issue.3. The petitioner is a trader in electrical goods at Delhi and registered with the Sales Tax Authorities in respect of Local Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner imp...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Rep. by Its Registrar Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad182
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University is the appellant before us. The challenge is to the order of the learned Judge dated 23.6.04 in W.P. No.9118/04. The learned single Judge dealt with the claim of the respondent for issuance of a certiorarified mandamus relating to the order of the appellant dated 12.2.03 in Lr. No.Affln.I(3)/42713/2003 and for a direction to the appellant to grant permission for increase of ten seats in B.Pharm degree course in the respondent's college for the academic year 2004-05.2. The admitted facts are that the respondent college had the approval of the Pharmacy Council of India as early as 27.3.03 for the increase of seats in the B.Pharm degree course from fifty to sixty from the academic year 2002-03 upto 2004-05. Based on the said approval, the respondent college applied for affiliation for the additional intake by their letter dated 7.10.03, which has been rejected by the appellant by the impugned order dated 8.12.03.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Veerasamy @ Sulaiman @ theeviravadhi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC4
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Veerasamy, the appellant herein was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 324, IPC for having caused the death of one Velayudham and simple injury on one Ramu and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 for the offence under Section 302, IPC and three months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324, IPC. Challenging the conviction and sentence this appeal has been filed.2. The factual matrix, which are relevant for the disposal of the appeal, are as follows:a) The deceased Velayudham is used to indulge in the sale of cinema tickets in black market. P.W.2 Natarajan and P.W.3 Ramu are his friends. After finishing their work they used to take bed near Kannagi statue in the Marina Beach. The appellant/accused used to give money to the deceased for the purchase of cinema tickets and after selling the tickets in black market, he used to get commission from the deceased. On 20.2.2000, there was a quarrel ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Sugars Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]275ITR491(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian J.1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 192/Mds of 1992 dated October 22, 1998, by formulating the following substantial question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in allowing the deduction of Rs. 1,20,000 paid to Southern Technical Services (P.) Ltd. as consultancy fee under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Department that the directors of the assessee-company as well as Southern Technical Services (P.) Ltd., were almost one and the same and the services rendered by Southern Technical Services (P.) Ltd., cannot be regarded as a consultancy service, as they have compiled various information readily available in the newspapers and journals and put it in the form of booklet, viz., 'News Bulletin' and 'Information Bulletin', and therefore it would not be considered ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ramalingam Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Secretary, Ministr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ412
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the 6th respondent in his proceedings No.45W/C 2101/1/2/P1 dated 16.3.1997 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Aircraftsman with all the consequential benefits.2. Today, when the above matter has been taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, no representation has been offered on the part of the respondents. Hence, this Court is left with no option but to pass orders after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusing the materials placed on record.3. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it comes to be known that the petitioner is an Aircraftsman in the Air Force. He submits that usually Aircraftsme...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. the Presiding Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ652Mad; (2004)4MLJ409
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The above Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in I.D.No.12 of 1990, dated 28.7.1995 and quash the same.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the second respondent was an Electrician with the petitioner Management. The case of the petitioner/Management is that on 27.10.1988 at about 1.10 a.m., the second respondent/workman came in a cycle and committed theft of two copper coils kept near the compound wall and when he was attempting to move his cycle with the copper coils, he was apprehended by the Security Guard and when questioned by the security personnel, he admitted the guilt. On such charge, the petitioner/Management has not only initiated departmental proceedings against the second respondent/workman but has also lodged a criminal complaint against ...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Proteins Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN441(Mad)
ORDERAM. Sapre, J.This is an application made by assessee under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act consequent upon the dismissal of their application made under section 256(1) of the Act by the Tribunal by order dated 27-1-1997, passed in RA Nos. 114/115/Ind/1998 which in turn arises out of an order dated 14-5-1998, passed in ITA Nos, 514/Ind/1992 and 924/Ind/1994 by the Tribunal. In the opinion of Tribunal, since the questions proposed are essentially based on questions of facts and are in fact questions of fact involving no legal issue as such which may attract the jurisdiction of High Court to answer the same on merits under section 256(1) ibid and hence, the Tribunal declined to make the reference to this court. It is then the assessee has come up under section 256(2) of the Act by making this application asking this court to call for reference to answer following questions of law :'(01) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »