Chennai Court January 2005 Judgments
A. Abdul Samath Vs. the Chief Enforcement Officer, Directorate of Enfo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1659
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. Criminal Original Petition is to call for the records relating to E.O.C.C. No. 1164 of 1994 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 and to quash the same.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's residence was searched by the respondent Officers on 15/7/1993, as a result of which, foreign currencies were seized and now, it is in the custody of the respondent Officers; that The Special Director/Adjudicating Officer of Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi, issued an unsigned show cause memorandum dated 29/12/1993 under Section 51 of the Act (not under Section 61 of the said Act) and the same was served to the petitioner only on 15/4/1994; that the respondent had filed a criminal complaint No. E.O.C.C. No. 1164 of 1994 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai 600 008; that the complaint was not on the basis of evidence of contravention by the Adjudicating Officer; that S...
Tag this Judgment!S. Pangajam Vs. the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC537
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J.1. The above petition is filed for the relief as stated therein.2. The petitioner filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru for the alleged offences under Sections 465, 465 read with 34 and 471, I.P.C. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the accused has forged the signature of the petitioner in certain documents and false documents have been created and the civil suits are filed by the respective parties. In the meanwhile, since the respondent police has not initiated any action, the petitioner has approached the learned Magistrate to order for necessary investigation by the respondent police and accordingly, an order was passed on 3.10.2002 under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C, directing the respondent police to conduct the investigation. Subsequently, the persons, against whom the complaint was lodged, have approached the Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur for grant of Anticipatory Bail in Crl.M.P. No. 3522 of 2002, wherein...
Tag this Judgment!Parkside Explosives and Industries Ltd. (Now Known as Matheson Bosanqu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: [2005]278ITR561(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law :'2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant was not entitled for the claim for extra-shift allowance on plant and machinery leased out when it is eligible for normal depreciation?'The matter pertains to the assessment year 1986-87. The assessee in this case engaged in the business of leasing and it claimed extra-shift allowance on the machinery leased out on the basis of the certificates issued by the lessees for the number of days the machinery worked on extra shift. The assessing officer, during the course of the assessment proceedings, examined and allowed the claim of the assessee for extra-shift allowance, by his order, dated 23-3-1989, passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act').The Commissioner of Income Tax invoked his revisional power under section 263 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Parkside Explosives and Industries Ltd. (Now Known as Matheson Bosanqu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Mad)324
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law :'2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant was not entitled for the claim for extra-shift allowance on plant and machinery leased out when it is eligible for normal depreciation ?'2. The matter pertains to the assessment year 1986-87. The assessee in this case engaged in the business of leasing and it claimed extra-shift allowance on the machinery leased out on the basis of the certificates issued by the lessees for the number of days the machinery worked on extra shift. The Assessing Officer, during the course of the assessment proceedings, examined and allowed the claim of the assessee for extra-shift allowance, by his order, dated March 23, 1989, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act' for short).3. The Commissioner of Income-tax invoked his revisional power...
Tag this Judgment!Vellammal Educational Trust Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2005
Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Chennai)665
1. These two appeals, one by assessee and the other by Revenue, emanate from common order of CIT(A), dt. 19th Dec., 1997, for the asst. yr.1994-95. The issues involved in these appeals are common and hence these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience. (i) The assessment order is time-barred assessment as the special audit ordered by the AO is to buy time to complete the assessment. (ii) The denying exemption of under Section 10(22) of the IT Act, 1961, is unwarranted. (iii) Addition to trust income on account of credits in the accounts of the trustees to the tune of Rs. 95,02,436 without establishing that the fund of trust was actually transferred from the trust. (i) The CIT(A) is not justified in deleting a sum of Rs. 95,02,436 though he satisfied that the amount was diverted from trust to the accounts of the trustees.4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a registered trust under Section 12A...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Council of Medical Research, Represented by Its Director Genera ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC488; 2005(2)ESC1277; (2005)IILLJ647Mad
ORDERS.K. Krishnan, J.1. Aggrieved by the order, dated 28.11.2000 passed in T.A.No. 2/2000 by the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, while the respondents therein, have filed a Writ Petition No. 7094 of 2001 for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 28.11.2000, in T.A.No. 2 of 2000 and quash the same, the applicant therein has filed a Writ Petition No. 488 of 2002 for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for quashing the above said order in respect of giving effect to regularise the service of the petitioner in W.P.No. 488 of 2002 and to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to regularise the services of the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1975 when the petitioner joined the service of the National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau with all consequential benefits.2. Since the survival of the petition in W.P.No. 488 of 2002 is solely based on the nature of the disposal of the petition in W.P.No. 7094 of 2001, first we de...
Tag this Judgment!icici Bank Ltd., (Formerly Bank of Madura Ltd.) Vs. the Official Liqui ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC286; [2005]124CompCas550(Mad); 2005(1)CTC758; (2005)1MLJ309; [2005]64SCL202(Mad)
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 27.8.2004. We have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the records.2. The revision petitioner is a secured creditor. M/s. Vibrant Investments & Properties Ltd. was a company which went into liquidation and the question is whether the claim of the petitioner will prevail over the claim of the Income-tax Department and the Karnataka Sales Tax Department.3. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co. where it has been held that the claim of a secured creditor will prevail over crown debts.4. In view of the above, we modify the impugned judgment of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 27.8.2004 and direct that the claim of the petitioner will prevail over that of the Income-tax Department and the Karnataka Sales Tax Department, but this will be subjec...
Tag this Judgment!P. Veeraragavan S/O Palamalai Pillai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ418
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notification in G.O. Ms. No. 168, Revenue (R.A.I (1)) Department dated 19.04.2002, and for a mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to issue orders for continuation of Ariyalur District with Headquarters at Ariyalur.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner has stated that he is a Senior Citizen and permanent resident of Ariyalur, and he is also an active member of the various social and cultural organizations working for the development of Ariyalur District. He further alleged that this writ petition has been filed in the interest of the general public, who are very much affected by the impugned notification and the consequent merger of Ariyalur District with Perambalur District. It is alleged in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that citizens who wanted the bifurcation of Perambalur district and the formation of a sep...
Tag this Judgment!Sakthi Sugars Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Mad)682; [2005]273ITR320(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in T.C.P. No. 766 of 1997 dated 25.6.1998, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our consideration:-'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction Under Section 35C of the I.T. Act in respect of the entirety of the expenditure incurred by way of Motor Vehicle Maintenance of cane department, transport of fertilisers and travel expenses of cane department?'2. The assessment year involved is 1983-84. The assessee is a public limited company and its main business is the manufacture of sugar. The assessee claimed, in its assessment proceedings, weighted deduction on certain expenses under Section 35C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), but the assessing officer disallowed the following expenses:-1. 50% of motor vehicle m...
Tag this Judgment!M. Chinnasamy Vs. Tenancy Record Officer-cum-tahsildar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ411
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 third respondent in R.Dis.29617/96/C2 dated 28.11.1996 thereby confirming the order of the second respondent dated 22.2.1996 made in A.P.No. 27/95 and that of the first respondent's order dated 7.7.1995 made in T.R.No. 6/93 and quash the same. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, the petitioner would submit that the fifth respondent is the owner of an extent of 9.05 acres in S.No. 4, 5 and 27B in Vadapoothinam village, Udumalpet Taluk and it was leased out by him to the father of the petitioner by name late V.Mounasamy Naidu who died on 21.3.1990 leaving behind him his widow the 8th respondent, three sons i.e. the petitioner and respondents 4 and 6 and one daughter the 7th respondent; that the 4th respondent herein has filed a petition in T.R.No. 6/93 on the file of the First respo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »