Chennai Court December 2005 Judgments
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Smr Cotton Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Chennai)594
1. The only issue in this appeal, is whether interest under Section 234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961 can be levied while computing deemed income on book profit under the provisions of Section 115JA as prescribed in Chapter XII-B under the heading, 'Special provisions relating to certain companies' or not.2. The relevant assessment year involved in this appeal is 1999-2000.The assessee filed return of income on 8th Nov., 1999 declaring a loss of Rs. 3,33,115 and the return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on 19th Nov., 1999. But later on a revised statement was filed on 30th March, 2000 admitting a 'nil' income but computed book profits under Section 115JA on Rs. 1,01,23,545 and paid tax of Rs. 10,62,975 on 30 per cent of book profit. While processing the return the AO charged interest under Sections 234B and 234C. Against this processing of return under Section 143(1)(a) the assessee moved an application under Section 154 objecting to charging of interest under Section 234B and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sayaji Salunkhe Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Chennai)1222
1. This appeal by the assessee (is) against the assumption of power by the learned CIT under Section 263. The Section 263 order is dt. 23rd March, 2005.2. The learned Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that there is no justification for the learned CIT to assume the power under Section 263, as the conditions were not satisfied. There is no error prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue crept in the order of the AO to exercise revisional power under Section 263. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 is not sustainable under law is vehement argument of the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel further invited our attention (to) the assessment order, wherein the AO found that necessary details were filed and the books and documents produced were duly processed. After pemsal of the details, the assessment order was framed. The issue is in relation to application of Section 40A(3). The learned Counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the relevant portion of the au...
Tag this Judgment!N.D. Ramanujam, Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC51; (2006)1MLJ244
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. These writ appeals are filed against the common order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos. 15453 to 15455 of 1995 dated 31.7.200 2. The appellants/writ petitioners, in their respective writ petition, challenged the Award dated 19.8.1994, passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned single Judge negatived the contentions of the writ petitioners and consequently dismissed the writ petitions, against which the present writ appeals are preferred.2. (a) Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners made two legal submissions. Firstly the learned Senior counsel contended that the Land Acquisition Officer, who passed the Award, failed to follow the procedures contemplated under Section 9(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of giving 15 days time to appear for the award enquiry. The second contention is that prior approval was not obtained by the Officer from the appropriate Government or of such of...
Tag this Judgment!Thangammal, Vs. Papathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ517
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.18 of 1987, a suit for partition, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, have filed this second appeal aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below.2. Appellants herein are defendants 1 to 3 and respondents 1 and 2 are Plaintiffs in the suit.3. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the original suit are as follows:(a) The suit property to the extent of 16 cents in S. No. 12/5 in Velankanni Village originally belonged to the family of one Pitchaikannu, predecessor of the plaintiffs. He had two sons by name Arumainathan and Manickam. Arumainathan had one son by name Sebastian (since dead) and two daughters Papathi and Anthoniammal, who are plaintiffs herein. The wife of Sebastian by name Thangammal, daughter Santhanamary and son Arokiasamy are defendants 1 to 3 in the suit.(b) The other son of Pitchaikannu by name Manickam had three sons and two daughters and one of the son by name Santhanasamy is 4th def...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and the Commissioner of C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(203)ELT193(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. In all the Civil Revision Petitions, the petitioners are Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Finance, Union of India and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai. The issue raised in all these petitions is common, they are being disposed of by the following common Order.2. C.R.P.No. 4113/2001 is filed against order dated 25-9-2001 of the Subordinate judge, Poonamallee made in I.A.No. 1182/2001 in O.S.No.317/2001 in and by which the learned Judge allowed the said application and granted injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants therein from proceeding in terms of show cause notice No. SCN 31 /95 dated 31-8-95 and amended by addendum dated 15-9-95 pending disposal of the suit.3. C.R.P.No. 4128/2001 is against order dated 9-8-2001 of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai made in I.A.No. 1 1797/2001 in O.S.No. 4177/2001 in and by which the learned Judge after setting the first respondent therein-Department ex parte, allowed the application ...
Tag this Judgment!Perichiappa Gounder and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC305
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. Under the impugned order, the Government has rejected the petitioner's claim for reconveyance under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the State of Tamil Nadu. Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would attack the order on the following grounds:'The property acquired and transferred to the Housing Board remains unutilised for a long number of years and therefore it must be held that the public purpose for which the lands were acquired no longer subsists. If that is so, the land owners have a right to have the lands reconveyed. When the lands, which were acquired is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, then the Government has a right of forfeiture under Section 16-B of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore reading Sections 16-B and Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act (both amended by the State of Tamil Nadu) this Court has to necessarily hold, on the facts a...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D./W ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR447(Madras); (2004)2MLJ470
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. The State Government has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 11.12.2000 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai in O.P. No. 22 of 1998 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts, so far as necessary for the decision in the present appeal, are as follows:On 21.7.1995, there was an agreement executed between the State Government and the contractor (present Respondent No. 1) relating to the work of strengthening of Periyar Dam. Such work commenced on 9.8.1995. However, on 22.11.1995, the officials of the Forest Department of the Kerala Government stopped quarrying work done by the contractor and thereafter the earthwork was also stopped in December. The State of Tamil Nadu identified a fresh place for quarrying about 67 kms. away from the worksite at Periyar Dam and thereafter the work resumed on 8.1.1997. Thereafter, the work was again stopped on 6.2.1997 and the contra...
Tag this Judgment!M. Duraisamy and M. Mani Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad131
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. Under the impugned order, the Government has rejected the petitioner's claim for reconveyance under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the State of Tamil Nadu. Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would attack the order on the following grounds:The property acquired and transferred to the Housing Board remains unutilised for a long number of years and therefore it must be held that the public purpose for which the lands were acquired no longer subsists. If that is so, the land owners have a right to have the lands reconveyed. When the lands, which were acquired is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, then the Government has a right of forfeiture under Section 16-B of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore reading Sections 16-B and Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act (both amended by the State of Tamil Nadu) this Court has to necessarily hold, on the facts av...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnan (Alias) Palaniappan and Chellammal Vs. Chinna Gounder (Died),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad139; (2006)1MLJ240
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants, having lost before the Courts below, preferred this second appeal. The sole plaintiff died pending second appeal and his legal representatives were impleaded as respondents 2 to 4 as per the orders of this Court dated 23.2.1996.2. The brief facts leading to filing of the original suit are that the deceased plaintiff purchased the suit property on 23.6.1965 for valid consideration from one Ramasamy Gounder's wife Veerammal and her sons Kuppusamy and Perumal, and eversince the date of purchase, he was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. The adjacent land belongs to one Vellaiyan @ Karuppanna Gounder, elder brother of the first respondent. Next to that, lies the land of defendants, on the southern and eastern side of plaintiff's land. The specific case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner of the suit property, enjoying the same by raising groundnut crops. Such being the case, the plaintiff alleged that on ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Limited Rep. by Its Manager Vs. Vijaya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ1530; (2006)1MLJ688
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. The Insurance Company has filed these two appeals against the common award passed by the Claims Tribunal in respect of two claim applications numbered as M.C.O.P. Nos. 127 and 136 of 1994. Such claim applications have been filed by the legal heirs of the two deceased persons.2. The common allegation in both the applications is to the effect that death was caused on account of the accident caused by one M. Thangaraj, the owner-cum-driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-59 C 1188. The said lorry has been insured with the present appellant.3. In M.C.O.P. No. 127 of 1994, a sum of Rs. 4,02,000 has been awarded as compensation, whereas in M.C.O.P. No. 136 of 1994, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded as compensation.4. The owner-cum-driver of the lorry, Who has been arrayed as Respondent No. 1 in both the M.C.O.Ps. had remained ex-parte.5. The Insurance Company had filed written statement denying the allegation relating to negligence. It was also claimed by ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »