Chennai Court November 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
East India Mining Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2005
Reported in: [2006]286ITR688(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Today, when the appeals were taken up for admission, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. Hence, the above appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution. Consequently, T.C.M.P. Nos. 836 to 838 of 2005 are also dismissed....
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Direc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC383; 2005(5)CTC546
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award and decreetal order dated 23.9.2003 made in MACTOP No. 821 of 1999 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Additional Sub Court), Coimbatore.2. According to the claimant/respondent, on 29.11.1998, when the claimant was travelling in a bus belonging to the appellant corporation bearing Registration No. TN-37-N-0507, the driver of the bus negotiating a curve drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the claimant was thrown away from the bus through the rear side door and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she was admitted in the nearby private hospital. The claimant suffered head injuries apart from fracture of the right leg. Hence, the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation by the injured claimant.3. The above claim petition was resisted by the appellant transport corporation stating that the claimant, who was standing near the rear foot board tried to hand over he...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ratna Agencies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2005
Reported in: [2006]284ITR609(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 3.4.2002 made in ITA.Nos.2565 and 2566(Mds)/1991 respectively.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved in the present appeals is 1989-1990.3. The short facts of the case are that the assessee Company is a partnership firm and it filed returns for the assessment year 1989-1990. The assessing Officer while processing the returns, noticed that the assessee had contravened the provisions of Section 269SS and 269T by accepting cash loans exceeding Rs. 20,000/- and hence levied penalty under Sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against such levy of penalty the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who deleted the penalty imposed by the assessing officer holding that the contravention alleged against the assessee did not result in any unaccounted transaction such as lending and repayment and that both ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Saradha Textile Processors P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2005
Reported in: [2006]286ITR499(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 15.5.2002 made in ITA. No. 307/94, CO. No. 28/94 respectively.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved in the present appeals is 1990-1991.3. The short facts of the case are that the assessee Company, for the assessment year 1990-91, had claimed depreciation and investment allowance on the machinery, which was received on 4.4.1990, i.e, after the previous year ended on 31.3.1990. When this was pointed out by the assessing officer, the assessee withdrew the claims. But the assessing Officer by the assessment order dated 18.2.1992, levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for falsely claiming depreciation and allowances with an intention to evade taxes. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who had deleted the levy of penalty by his order dated 30.11.1993. The revenue,...
Sree Nithyakalyani Textiles Ltd. Vs. Dy Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2005
Reported in: [2006]282ITR154(Mad)
P. D. Dinakaran J.The above tax case appeals are directed against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. Nos. 1120 of 1997 and 1108 of 2000 date 22-3-2005, respectively. The assessee-company, against which penalty was imposed, is the appellant in both the appeals. The assessment year involved is 1994-1995.2. The facts in brief are as follows :The assessee-company is carrying on the business of manufacturing cotton yarn. The assessee filed its return of income showing its total income as Rs. 45,99,530 on 28-11-1994, which was accepted in toto by the department. After scrutiny, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range I, Madurai, the respondent herein, made an addition of Rs. 25,55,192 as the cotton lying was undervalued at Rs. 29.38, instead of Rs. 39.76 per kilo. Aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by order dated 13-3-1997 confirmed the order passed by the respondent herein. Challenging ...
Titanium Equipment and Anode Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. the Deputy . Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Mad)142
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are against the orders of the Incometax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 2795/Mds/1992, ITA No. 2802/Mds/1992 and ITA. No. 2803/Mds/92.2. The assessee is the appellant. The assessment years with which we are concerned are 1985-86, 1983-84 and 1984-85. During the previous years relevant to the assessment years in question, the assessee leased out certain assets of the company and claimed extra-shift allowance and additional depreciation, which was turned down by the assessing officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), on appeal, confirmed the order of the assessing officer for the assessment year 19 85-86. In so far as the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 are concerned, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that extra shift allowance is only an extension of depreciation allowable as per Rules and when the assessing officer granted depreciation on leased assets, extra-shift allowance should also be allowed after verificatio...
K. Krishnaveni Vs. the Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Public (Law ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ757; 2005(5)CTC518
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner, by name, K. Krishnaveni, wife of the detenu challenges the detention order passed by the Secretary to Government, Public (S.C) Department, Chennai-9, detaining her husband, V. Subramaniyam under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ( in short 'COFEPOSA Act') in G.O.No.SR.1/1561-3/2004, dated 27.12.2004.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-(a) On 1.12.2004, the Customs Authorities, on information, searched the factory premises of Karware Impex (P) limited, at Minjur, Ponneri Taluk and found three advance licences under Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate Scheme (in short DEEC Scheme). The total quantity importable under the three licences was 1053.128 MTs. of stainless steel/coils of AISI 304 Grade. (b) During the search, as per the grounds of detention, the Customs officers verified the stock of imported goods with reference to packing lists under which the goods were imported under DEE...
S. SebastIn Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ947
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The detenu by name S.Sebastin who was detained under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act by the impugned proceedings dated 28.6.2005, challenges the same in this petition.2. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 3 and Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the second respondent. 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the affidavit questioning the impugned order of detention,at the foremost, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would project that in view of the fact that the detenu was a remand prisoner and no application for bail was filed and in the absence of any material, the detaining authority is not justified in satisfying himself that 'there is imminent possibility of releasing the detenu on bail'. Accordingly, the detention order is liable to be quashed on th...
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sriperumbudur Sub-division I/C Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC672; (2006)1MLJ129
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sriperumbudur Sub-Division, Kancheepuram District, aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, dated 26.9.2001, made in O.A. No. 888 of 2001 , has filed the above writ petition.2. The brief facts are stated hereunder:According to the petitioner, the first respondent was working as Head Constable in Kancheepuram District with effect from 5.6.2000 and while he was serving in the Economic Offices Wing, one Smt. Saleema Bee, residing at 129, G.S.T. Road, Chengalpattu, came to Chengalpattu Town Police Station and lodged a complaint to the effect that on 14.12.2 000 dated 10.00 p.m., while she was returning home after making phone call, a police man pulled her hand and threatened to get into the autorickshaw, otherwise he would do harm to her and at that time, her husband came there and she informed the matter to her husband. Her husband brought her to the police station and reported the matter to ta...
M. Devendran Vs. the Director Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ40
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order in Rc.No.04/Camp/dfrs/2003, dated 6.10.2005, issued by the respondent and quash the same. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that pursuant to the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, an Appeal has been filed by him, in which suspension of sentence is ordered, thereafter the respondent has issued a notice dated 6.10.2005 which is impugned in this Writ Petition, that in the said notice, the respondent has revealed the mind that it has decided to take departmental action against the petitioner on the basis of the facts which led to the conviction and accordingly arrived at a provisional conclusion to dismiss the petitioner from service, which discloses prejudging the things and prayed to quash the said notice. 3. On the above said contention, I heard the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »