Chennai Court October 2005 Judgments
The Joint Commissioner of Customs (Personnel and Vigilance), Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ653
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of petitioners and contesting first respondent, main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 16-07-2004, made in O.A. No. 27 of 2004, Customs Department has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioners is briefly stated hereunder:Smt. T.E. Radha, first respondent herein, is working as Upper Division Clerk (Now Tax Assistant after reconstructing of the cadre) in the office of the first petitioner, namely, Commissioner of Customs (Export), Customs House, Chennai-1. She is physically handicapped. She sought for promotion to the post of Examiner, a Group 'C' post and submitted her willingness. Since clarification regarding accommodating physically handicapped persons in the grade of examiners/preventive officer, in view of the notification No. 16-25/99-N1-1 dated 31-05-2001 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and E...
Tag this Judgment!R. Balavadivel Vs. Chief Educational Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ679
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. R. Balavadivel, petitioner herein, has filed this Writ Petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the District Educational Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District, second respondent, in his proceedings Rc. No. 2434/B1/2004, dated 30.06.2004, and quash the same.2. The facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are summarised as follows :'(a) Petitioner was appointed as a Laboratory Assistant in the year 1991 in N.S.V.V.Higher Secondary School, Pattiveeranpatti, third respondent herein. He is having the qualification of B.Com.,B.A.(English), and B.Ed. As such, he is fully qualified to be appointed as B.T.Assistant. One post of Tamil Pandit and one post of B.T.Assistant became vacant. Since he is qualified to the post of B.T.Assistant, he made a representation to the management, requesting to consider him for promotion to the post of B.T.Assistant, as there were no qualified hands working in t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N. Vellaiyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Mad)304; [2006]287ITR520(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Against the order of the Tribunal in IT(SS)A No. 97/Mad/2001, dt. 17th May, 2005, the Revenue has preferred the appeal and raised the following substantial question of law :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in excluding the total amount of Rs. 4,49,568 declared as income for the asst. yrs. 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99, even though the assessee has not filed the returns of income within the dates but filed after the date of search in the computation of 'undisclosed income' is valid ?2. The Revenue is the appellant. This appeal relates to the block period from 1st April, 1988 to 9th Dec, 1998. There was a search conducted under Section 132 of the IT Act on 9th Dec, 1998 resulting in seizure of 724 gms. of jewellery valued at Rs. 2.69 lakhs and Kisan Vikas Patras to the value of Rs. 2.31 lakhs and other documents. The case of the assessee that while arriving at the gross total income, the gross total income should be re...
Tag this Judgment!A. Obaidhullah Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC380
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by common order dated 17-01-2002 made in O.A. No. 5664 of 1992 of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, A. Obaidhullah has filed W.P. No. 32335 of 2002 for quashing of the said order.2. One N. Manoharan has filed W.P.No. 29566 of 2004 seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent-Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the charge memo dated 23-05-90 as done to the co-delinquents, namely, M.A. Khyum, P. Senthur Pandian and S. Mahalingam and consequently treat the period of suspension from 5-6-1978 to 5-6-1981 as duty for all purposes and award all benefits as done to the said co-delinquents.3. The case of A. Obaidhullah is briefly stated hereunder:He served as Second Grade Warder from 11-11-1971 to 05-06-1978 and was under suspension from 6-6-1978 to 13-11-1981. After revocation of suspension, he worked as Second Grade Warder from 14-11-1981 to 10-6-1983, th...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Ram Investment Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: [2006]283ITR371(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Against the order of the Appellate Tribunal in ITA. No. 98/Mds/1999, dated 18.3.2005, the Revenue has preferred the appeal and raised the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that hire purchase finance charges are not subject to interest tax, without going into the nature of the financial transactions?(2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that interest from Government securities is not subject to interest tax?2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved in the appeal is 1996-97. The assessee claimed deduction on hire purchase finance charges and interest received on Kisan Vikas Pathras. The assessing officer held that finance charges relating to hire purchase contracts and the interest earned from Government securities would be subject to interest tax. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-t...
Tag this Judgment!Sreenivas Charitable Trust Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: [2006]280ITR357(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Against the order of the Appellate Tribunal in ITA.No.1025/Mds/1999, dated 11.6.2004, the assessee has preferred the appeal and raised the following substantial question of law:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee as barred by limitation?'2. The assessee is the appellant. The assessment year involved in the appeal is 1998-99. The assessee is a Charitable Trust enjoying the exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer brought to tax the investments made by the assessee in M/s.India Housing Finance and Development Limited in respect of which the renewal application for its approval under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act was not disposed of by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the action of the assessing officer. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appe...
Tag this Judgment!C. Jayapal Vs. the Director of Medical Education and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR573]
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Director of Medical Education, Chennai-10 dated 6.1.1996, order dated 19.11.2001 of the Dean, Madurai Medical College and the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 18.6.2002 made in O.A. No. 1844 of 2002, the petitioner, C. Jayapal, filed the above writ petition to quash those orders and issue directions to respondents 1 and 2 to appoint him in any one of the vacancies on compassionate ground.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The father of the petitioner was working as Lab Technician Grade I in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. On 6.1.1988, he died while in service. The deceased left behind his widow Manimekalai, two sons and two daughters. As his elder brother Rajkumar had already married and is living separately from their family, the petitioner made an application to the second respondent for appointment on compassionate ground in any one of the vacancies. The second respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: [2006]282ITR428(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA.No.70/Mds/2001, dated 9.05.2005.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved is 1995-96. The case of the appellant is that the assessee/respondent herein is a scheduled Bank engaged in the business of banking. In the interest tax assessment, the assessing officer made an addition on account of interest on Government Securities, interest on tax free investment, interest on bonds, interest on Treasury Bills and interest received on investment deposit scheme-IDBI, which the assessee had not included and subjected the same to interest tax. On appeal at the instance of the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed the assessing officer to exclude the interest received from the above five securities from computation of chargeable interest, which was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal, on appeal by the Revenue.3. Aggrieved by the same, th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kasi Credit Corporation and Kasi Financ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: [2006]280ITR129(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA.Nos.1266 & 1268/Mds/2001, dated 21.5.2003.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment years involved are 1997-98 and 1996-97. The case of the appellant is that the assessees/respondents herein was engaged in the business of accepting deposits from the public for the purpose of Real Estate and Property Development business. The assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 158BD and 158BC of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') for the block period was passed on 29.12.1998. The assessing officer found that there was contravention of the provisions of Section 269T of the Act by the firm in repaying deposits with interest to the public, for which, penalty proceedings under Section 271E of the Act were initiated. On appeal at the instance of the assessee, the Commissioner of Income (Appeals)-VI, Chennai allowed the appeal and cancelle...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC451; (2006)IILLJ194Mad; (2005)4MLJ659
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the common order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 10-8-2001, made in O.A. Nos. 6277 and 6284 of 1997, Commercial Taxes Department and the Government have filed the above writ petitions.2. One N. Sivasamy, applicant before the Tribunal and first respondent herein filed O.A. No. 6277/97 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for quashing the order of suspension made in G.O. (D) No. 319 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 29-07-97 and the connected order in G.O. (D) No. 320 of the same Department dated 29-07-97 as well as for direction to the department to treat the applicant as having retired from service on 31-07-1997 with all service benefits. In O.A. No. 6284/97, the very same applicant sought for quashing the charge memo dated 15-7-97 served on him on 23-7-97. For convenience, we shall refer the charges as arrayed before the Tribunal.3. The case of the applicant is that he was serving as Comme...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »