Chennai Court December 2005 Judgments
The Union of India (Uoi) Represented by Deputy Chief Personnel Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ588
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Considering the limited issue raised, by consent of the petitioner and the contesting second respondent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated 13.09.2005, made in O.A. No.592 of 2004, the I.C.F. (Integral Coach Factory) Administration has filed the above Writ Petition to quash the same. 3. Heard Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mrs.Anna Mathew for the contesting first respondent.4. Inasmuch as the Tribunal has issued only an interim direction, keeping the main Application pending on its file, it is unnecessary for us to refer all the factual matrix as stated by the petitioner and the second respondent.5. It is the grievance of the applicant (second respondent herein) that viva voce marks awarded by the Viva Voce Committee were not based on proper evaluation and that the evaluation can be entrusted to a different Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Indian Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2005
Reported in: 2006(198)ELT334(Mad)
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In view of the provisions of Section 142 of the Customs and Central Excise Act and also in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co. and State of Bikaner & Jaipur v. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corporation and Ors. the Central Excise Department will have precedence over the secured creditors. The first respondent bank is directed to pay the excise dues to the appellant after adjudication. With this direction, the appeal stands disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Arumugam Vs. Trishul Traders
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2005
Reported in: [2006]132CompCas434(Mad); (2006)2MLJ41
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 51 of 1985 on the file of the Sub-court, Mayiladuthurai is the appellant in the above appeal.2. For convenient sake, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.3. The plaintiffs case is as follows:Defendants Nos. 2. and 3 borrowed a sum of Rs. 60,000 from the plaintiff on June 23,1982 for the benefit of their business and also for the first defendant firm and the third defendant as partner of the firm gave a post dated cheque dated August 21, 1982 drawn on United Commercial Bank, New Washermenpet Branch, in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 60,000 towards the repayment of the said loan. When the cheque was presented for collection, the same was dishonoured and the defendants were informed about the dishonour of the cheque and the defendants promised to make arrangement for repayment of the loan ; but when they failed to do so, a registered notice dated May 26, 1985 was issued ; but the defendants failed ...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Selvi J. Jayalalithaa
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: (2006)282ITR112(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated June 16, 1997, of the Commissioner (Appeals)-IV, Chennai, and it relates to the assessment year 1993-94.2. The first issue raised in this appeal relates to the determination of the value of jewellery.3. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the materials placed before us. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed 15 per cent, discount towards the value of jewellery. The Department is in appeal against the deduction of Rs. 24,42,160 being 15 per cent, of the value of the gold jewellery. Learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that as per Rule 19 of Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the value of any jewellery determined in accordance with Rule 18(3) for any assessment year shall be taken to be the value of such jewellery for the subsequent four assessment years. As such 15 per cent, deduction is not to be allowed. Having heard both the sides on the point we decide this issue in favour of the Revenu...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sureshkumar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Chennai)997
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-X, Chennai, dt. 14th Jan., 2000. The relevant assessment year involved in this appeal is 1996-97.2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the denial of exemption from capital gains under Section 54F of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of construction of one residential house. The briefly stated facts are that for the asst. yr. 1996-97, the assessee filed a return of.income on 2nd July, 1996. In this return of income, the assessee claimed exemption from capital gains under Section 54F of the Act on account of investment in residential house. This return, after processing under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act was taken up for scrutiny under Section 143(2) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised return on 21st Aug., 1998 in which he declared the income from house property at Rs. 24,620. The AO, after going through the revised return, found that the assessee has anot...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnu @ Pacha Gounder Vs. Periakaliammal @ Ponnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ177
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Plaintiffs, who are the sisters of the defendant, filed O.S. No. 266 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi for declaring that they are the absolute owners of the suit properties described in the schedule with a consequential direction to the defendant to hand over possession of the suit properties to the plaintiffs within a specified time and in case of default, to permit the plaintiffs to take possession of the suit properties through the process of the Court.2. The averments made in the plaint by the plaintiffs, who are the respondents in the Second Appeal are as follows:The suit properties, originally belonged to plaintiffs' mother by name Nachammal, under a sale deed dated 27.11.1937 and she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties till her life time. The said Nachammal (mother of the Plaintiffs and the defendant) died 40 years ago. Father of the plaintiffs and the defendant, by name Amaravathi Gounder also died in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Devendran Vs. State by Sub-inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC440
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. The Revision Petitioner is a qualified engineer, who suffered concurrent findings of conviction and sentence imposed on him by the courts below, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with 511, I.P.C.2. The trial court, by judgment dated 6.1.2003, passed in C.C. No. 717/1999, convicted the Revision Petitioner/ accused and sentenced him under Section 468 I.P.C. to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment, under Section 471 I.P.C., sentenced him to one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month and under Section 420 read with 511 I.P.C., he has been convicted and sentenced to six months' Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment. The lower appellate court in the judgment dated 20.2.2004 rendered in Crl. Appeal No. 10...
Tag this Judgment!Triveni Enterprises (Registered), Rep. by P. Ramarao and R. Radhakrish ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ350
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 13.1.1987 made in O.S. No. 4286 of 1982 on the file of 17th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. The appellants are the defendants in said suit laid by the first respondent herein for a declaration that she has retired from the first defendant firm with effect from 03.12.1979 and for payment of a sum of Rs. 12,288.61 and Rs. 10,351.39 for interest upto date of the plaint, totaling a sum of Rs. 22,640/-, which sum, the appellants/defendants failed and neglected to pay in spite of repeated demands.3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as in the Original Suit.4. In brief, the first defendant was a partnership firm carrying on finance business and defendants 2 to 10 and the plaintiffs were partners of the firm, as per the partnership deed dated 2.1.1975. As per the terms of the partnership deed, referred to above, a partner is entitled to retire from the firm by giving notice of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax - Ii Vs. Shri E.V. Balashanmugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2005
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Mad)440; [2006]286ITR626(Mad)
B.K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by formulating the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) even though the assessee was not entitled to the immunity provided under Section 132(4) read with Explanation (5) to Section 271(1)(c), since the disclosure made was not full and true '2. The relevant assessment year is 1992-93. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 1992-93 on 28.6.1993 admitting an income of Rs. 7,61,540/-. A search was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on 20.2.1992 and in that, the assessee declared the additional income purported to be under Section 132(4) of the said Act, which was included in the income returned. The assessment was final...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Rekha Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2005
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Mad)338; [2007]289ITR351(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The following questions of law were formulated by the Revenue for entertaining these cases :i. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that less than 50% of the face value of the promotes should only be treated as the amounts advanced and consequently the undisclosed income of the assessee ?ii. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the interest income for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 iii. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating the concealed income as belonging to various members of the assessee's family and dividing the same between them instead of taxing the entire amount in the assessee's hands ?iv. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in spreading over the undisclosed income over a period of five years, wh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »