Chennai Court September 2004 Judgments
Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN812(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran J.Both these appeals are preferred by the assessee. T.C. (A) No. 300 of 2001 is with reference to the assessment year 1991-92 and T.C. (A) No. 41 of 2002 is with reference to the assessment year 1992-93.2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing papers. The assessee filed its return under section 139 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1991-92 declaring their income as 'nil', which was arrived at after adjusting the carry forward investment allowance relating to the earlier years. The assessee-company claimed that the carry forward investment allowance may be absorbed in priority over the carry forward depreciation. However, the assessing authority, while passing the assessment order dated 15-2-1993, relating to the assessment year 1991-92, refused to accept the contention of the assessee and deducted the unabsorbed depreciation for the earlier years first, which reduced the taxable income to 'nil'. In his assessment or...
Tag this Judgment!Col. K. Malaippan Vs. the Government of India, Rep. by Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ512
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The request of the petitioner to change the date of birth from 15.07.44 to 22.06.46 and his consequential claim to continue his service upto 30.06.1999 was rejected by the first respondent in his proceedings dated 30.07.1996. Hence, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition seeking to call for the records of the respondents culminated in Order No. 7(6)/91/D(MS) dated 30th July 1996 of the first respondent and quash the said order No. 7(6)/91/D (MS) dated 30th July 1996 and direct the respondents to incorporate 22.06.1946 as the date of birth of the petitioner in the service records and accord all service benefits like promotions and other monetary benefits that will lawfully accrued to the petitioner in the service upto 30.6.1999.2.1. In brief, the petitioner joined service in the Army on 20.12.1970 declaring his date of birth as 15.7.1944 and the same has been duly entered into his service register. The Government of India in the Official Me...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayak Chemicals Rep. by Its Partner Ajay Goenka Vs. State of Tamilna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ226
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. Both the above Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioner, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to assign/sell the lands situate in Survey Nos. 130/4 and 130/5 to an extent of 1.14 Hectares in Vaikkadu Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chennai to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.2,76,176/- and to cancel any allotment/lease of the said lands in favour of the 6th respondent.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the Patta lands in Vaikkadu village, in Trivellore District measuring 1.31 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 131/6, 131/7, 131/9 and 131/10; that on the Western side abutting 'Poramboke land' to the extent of 0.56 acres is located and still further on the West and on the rear of the Poramboke lands are the lands belonging to the petitioner as well as the partners of the petitioner; that on the Southern side of the above said land is the compound wall of the Madras Fertilisers Limited and on the Northern side a...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Engineer, Madras Island Grounds Vs. Bakthi Constructions, Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC93; (2004)4MLJ257
P. Sathasivam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 30-11-1998 passed in C.S. No. 832 of 1993, wherein Mr. R. Dhananjayan, retired District Judge was appointed as Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed C.S.No.832 of 1993 before the Original Side of this Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for direction to the defendants for production of agreement dated 21-10-1988 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the construction of boundary wall at Naval Air Station, Arakonam and refer the dispute between the parties to an independent arbitrator appointed by this Court. It is the claim of the plaintiff that an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants for construction of a compound wall measuring 6.5 K.Ms. Though date was fixed for completion of the said work as 20-10-1989, the same was extended to 28-12-1990 and the work was completed on 31-...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Kandasami Vs. the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC352(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner put in issue the order of the Tribunal dated 28.2.2001 made in O.P.No.134 of 2001, whereby the the original petition filed invoking the provision of Section 16 of the Special Tribunal Act has been rejected by the Tribunal.2. The precise case of the petitioner before the Tribunal as well as before this Court is that for the assessment year 1992-93, though the petitioner was an assessee, has not filed any returns in respect of his transaction, which comes within Section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). The second respondent issued several summons for production of accounts as well as filing of the returns right from the year 1994 to 1998 and ultimately on 14.3.2000, pre-assessment notice was served. Even for the pre-assessment notice, there was no objection raised by the petitioner. The assessing authority ultimately on 28.3.2000 passed the assessment order. 3. The petitioner admittedly has not taken the matt...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ197; [2005]139STC477(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.I. Issues :1. The questions that arise for our consideration in this writ petition are:(i) Whether the purchase turnover of empty bottles purchased by the petitioner-company, who are engaged in the business of manufacturing beer and IMFL products, from unregistered dealers for bottling beer and IMFL manufactured by them, through the bought note to the extent of Rs. 24,78,20,465 is attracted for purchase tax under Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (for brevity 'the Act') ;(ii) Whether purchase tax is leviable on the purchase turnover of the empty bottles purchased by the petitioner-company to the extent of Rs. 24,78,20,465, under Section 7A of the Act, in spite of the clarifications dated November 9, 1989 and December 27, 2000 issued in favour of the petitioner-company by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, in view of Section 28A of the Act ; and(iii) Whether cash discount on the price offered by the petitioner-...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ms. J. Jayalalitha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: [2005]273ITR38(Mad)
R. Banumathi, J.1. These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-II(2), Chennai, against the respondents for a direction to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-I), Egmore, to fix a date for questioning the respondents/accused under Section 313(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and framing charges against the respondents.2. Complaints preferred against the respondents under Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were taken cognizance of by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, on October 14, 1996, August 11, 1997, August 21, 1997 in EOCC Nos. 161 of 1996,194, 202 and 203 of 1997, respectively.3. In the trial court, the prosecution has completed chief-examination of all three witnesses (P. Ws. 1 to 3). The cross-examination of prosecution witnesses was deferred for some time and later completed. The prosecution has closed its preliminary evidenc...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Highways Roadways Employees' Association, (Regn. No. 97/200 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ335
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. In all these writ petitions, the challenge is to the common order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 16.04.2003 in O.A. Nos. 5028 of 2002 etc., wherein the State Administrative Tribunal, while upholding the abolition of Gang Mazdoors made under G.O. Ms. No. 160 (Highways) dated 05.09.2002, directed the State Government to pay a sum equivalent to six months salary to each of the Gang Mazdoors, whether he had filed an Original Application before the Tribunal or not.2. The petitioners were represented by different counsel, however main submissions were made by Ms. R. Vaigai, Ms. Nalini Chidambaram and Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, whose arguments were adopted by the other counsel appearing for various other petitioners. Submissions were made on behalf of the respondent State by the learned Advocate General, as well as Mr. A.L. Somayaji, the learned Senior counsel. 3. In order to resolve the controversy involved in these writ petitions, the facts which lead to...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.R. Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Mad)44; [2005]274ITR110(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above appeal is directed against the order dated 29.6.1999 in IT(SS)A No.70/Mds/ 1998 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, on the following substantial question of law:'Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the assessment under Chapter XIV-B in the light of the specific provision contained in Section 158BB(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act?'2.1. In brief, the respondent/assessee is a partnership firm. A search was conducted by the revenue authorities under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act (for brevity 'the Act') on 23.2.1996, pursuant to a warrant of search issued by the competent authority to search M/s.A.R.Mercantile Private Limited at 26, Fagun Chambers, Commander-in-Chief Road, Madras-600 105. During the course of the search, certain books and documents (nine in number) relating to the assessee were seized. On scrutiny, it was noticed that the assessee earned taxable income for the assessment year 1995-96, bu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Golden Investments Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: [2006]281ITR287(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeal is filed by the Revenue by framing the question of law as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing deduction of the interest and expenditure from the business income also without recording a finding that the assessee is also a dealer in shares and a portion of the interest and expenditure is attributable to the business income ?'2. The case of the Revenue is that the Tribunal without giving a finding as to whether the assessee is also a dealer in shares directed to make proportion (sic-apportionment), in respect of the dividend received by them. Hence, without there being any finding that the assessee is a dealer in shares, such a direction for apportionment cannot be legally sustained.3. However, on seeing the order of the Tribunal, in the very first wording of the second paragraph, it is stated as 'that the assessee is a company carrying on business of dealing in shares', so ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »