Chennai Court September 2004 Judgments
Cit Vs. Golden Investments Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Mad)47; [2005]143TAXMAN227(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 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 is t...
Tag this Judgment!R.G. Bhuwanesh Vs. G. Usha Rani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC179
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Against the dismissal of O.P.No.124 of 1998 filed under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the petitioner has preferred the above Original Side Appeal.2. For convenience we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the learned Single Judge. It is seen that the petitioner and the respondent were married at Chennai on 5.9.1988 in accordance with the Hindu rites and two children were born from the wedlock viz., a daughter Divyalakshmi born on 29.5.1989 and a son Muralikrishnan born on 30.5.1990. Thereafter, due to misunderstanding both the petitioner and the respondent were living separately. It is alleged in the petition that since the respondent is not taking sufficient care and interest in the welfare of the children, has filed a petition praying for declaration that the petitioner is the guardian for both the minor children.3. The said petition was resisted by the respondent by filing counter. In the counter affidavit the respondent-wife has stated th...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Engine Valves Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)162
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. This is a reference on a question of law raised under Section 256(2) of the Income-Tax Act, namely 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the refund received by the assessee from the Central Excise Department cannot be taxed under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially when the same has been claimed and allowed as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act ?'2.1. The respondent assessee is a company. During the assessment year 1988-89, the respondent assessee received a refund of Rs. 16,37,721/- as refund of excise duty. The assessee claimed this as a liability as this amount represents the liability to the stockists. The assessing officer assessed this amount as income under Section 41(1) of the Act, as the assessee had availed the deduction in the earlier years, when the money was paid to the Excise Department. 2.2. On appeal, the action of the assessing officer w...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Radhakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2004
Reported in: [2004]271ITR109(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. Pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 24.8.1998, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Madras has made a statement of case to this Court by raising the following question of law for our answer:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials in holding that the assessee had transferred only the lodging business to the trust and hence the transfer is not hit by the provisions of Section 60, even though the property with which the lodging business was done has not been transferred by the assessee to the Trust?'2. The assessee, an individual, is the owner of a building situated at No.5A (Old No.6), Lakshmikanthan Street, Thyagaraja Nagar, Madras. The building comprises of 40/41 single cot residential rooms and 40/41 double cot residential rooms with other facilities. For the assessment year 1988-89 and 1989-90, the assessee made a claim before the Assessing Officer to the eff...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax-i Vs. G.R. Govindarajulu and Sons Charities
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Mad)323
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/revenue. 2. These appeals are directed against the order dated 28.01.2004 made in ITA No.1575/ Mds/97 and order dated 16.4.2004 made in ITA No.1925/MDS/1998 reversing the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Central Circle II, Coimbatore by granting exemption to the respondent/assessee under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ACT) . 3. The appellant/revenue raised the following substantial questions of law for our consideration:'i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that mere mentioning in the adjusted total income statement that the amount has been set apart for utilizing for charitable purposes in the subsequent year, will amount to exercising option under Explanation (2)(i) or (ii) to section 11(1)(a) and such amount can be taken as amount set apart for application under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Asian Peroxides Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)449; [2005]275ITR68(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This appeal is filed Under Section 260A of the IT Act against the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1300/Mad/1994, dt. 28th Feb., 2003.2. The assessment year is 1991-92. For the abovesaid assessment year, the assessee has filed a return. While completing the assessment Under Section 143(l)(a) of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), the AO has made adjustments by adopting the written down value determined for the asst. yr. 1990-91 and disallowed the excess depreciation claimed in a sum of Rs. 24,14,298, against which, the assessee filed a petition Under Section 154 of the Act for rectification, which has been rejected by the AO. That order is put in issue before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has also confirmed the order of the AO. Ultimately, the assessee moved the Tribunal by way of an appeal as aforesaid by contending that while making adjustment, the assessing authority has exceeded his jurisdiction as conferred on him Under Section 143(l)(a) of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. G. R. Govindarajulu and Sons Charities
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2004
Reported in: [2004]271ITR145(Mad)
P. D. Dinakaran, J.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue.2. These appeals are directed against the order dated 28-1-2004 made in I.T.A. No. 1575/Mds of 1997 and order dated 16-4-2004, made in I.T.A. No. 1925/MDS of 1998 reversing the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Central Circle II, Coimbatore, by granting exemption to the respondent/assessee under section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The appellant/revenue raised the following substantial questions of law for our consideration :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that mere mentioning in the adjusted total income statement that the amount has been set apart for utilizing for charitable purposes in the subsequent year, will amount to exercising option under Explanation 2(i) or (ii) to section 11(1)(a) and such amount can be taken as amount set apart for applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!D.S. Muralikrishnan Vs. Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC19; 2006ACJ523; 2004(4)CTC686; (2004)4MLJ251
N. Kannadasan, J.1. The claimants have filed the above appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.2. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal while fixing the quantum for the death of the deceased girl, who was aged about 11 months, failed to consider the fact that even though the claim of Rs.2 lakhs was prayed for, a meagre amount of Rs.75,000/- alone was awarded without adducing any reason. The learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal has not correctly applied the principle laid down by the Judgment of this Court in Managing Director, Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation vs. Thangaraju and another . The learned counsel further contended that the age of the deceased is immaterial, while quantifying the compensation to be awarded and on various occasions, the Tribunals have awarded a higher amount ranging from Rs.1.50 lakhs to Rs.2 lakhs, which have been upheld by various High Courts and according...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Sundari Gopal Vs. the Chief Immigration Officer Shastri Bavan Ann ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad25
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner seeks for a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the passport bearing No. A 5311126 issued by the Regional Passport Office, Chennai, which is a genuine one and to allow the first petitioner to travel abroad using the same and to direct the first respondent to give due compensation to the second petitioner for the irreparable loss and hardship caused to him due to his termination from service.2. The first petitioner submits that she is employed as Nursing Care Assistant in a Nursing Home in the U.K. and her husband, the second petitioner, is also employed in the U.K. as a Security Guard. They came to India on a three week holiday and arrived at Chennai on 6.3.2004 via Colombo by Air Lanka. Their permanent address got on lease is at No.8, V.O.C. Street, Mogappair (West), Chennai-37. Although they were working out of India, their landlord Mr.Appikutti received all their communications and looked after their affairs pertainin...
Tag this Judgment!The Director of School Education, Vs. G. Venkatesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC696; (2004)4MLJ317
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein has filed the suit O.S. No. 489 of 1990 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif, Salem for a declaration to declare his date of birth as 07-04-1961 instead of 20-12-1959 entered in the S.S.L.C. Book by mistake, in which the petitioners were defendants.3. It is seen from the records that though the petitioners herein were served with notice, but they have not chosen to contest the suit. Ultimately, the said suit was decreed as prayed for on 17-03-1997. Without filing any appeal against the said Judgment and decree in O.S. No. 489 of 1990, after lapse of seven years, the petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.4. No doubt, Article 227 of the Constitution is not original proceeding like Article 226. Against any decision rendered under Article 226 by a single judge of the High Court an appeal before the divisi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »