Chennai Court January 2006 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kiran Processors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR165(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos. 191 (Mds.)/2000 dated 7.3.2005.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessee is a textile processor and exporter of hosiery fabric. The assessee filed return of income on 29.11.1996 and after completing assessment on 9.3.99, the assessing officer excluded the dyeing charges in terms of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC of the Act, and held that when 90% of the dyeing charges were excluded from the profits, the deduction under Section 80HHC became negative and accordingly, disallowed the same. The assessee went on appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), who partly allowed the appeal by directing the assessing officer to exclude the dyeing charges from the total turnover and also to exclude only the profit element of the dyeing charges from the profit of the business for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC. The appellate Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Fathima W/O. Sheik Mohideen Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1967
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner, wife of one Sheik Mohideen, Accused No. 8 in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2003 on the file of Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition for production of her husband, the said Sheik Mohideen before this Court and set him at liberty. In the affidavit filed in support of the above petition it is stated that her husband was arrested on 18-6-1999 and is languishing in jail over 6 = years and the said prolonged custody is oppressive and illegal. The prosecution though cited 400 witnesses, ultimately examined 235 witnesses only and two more investigation officers have to be examined. The witnesses examined so far none implicated the detenu, without any incriminating material, keeping her husband in prolonged custody is unjust and improper. His bail applications were also dismissed with a direction to complete the trial. In H.C.P. No. 75 of 2005 the Division Bench of this Court on 20-6-20 05 directed the prosecuti...
Tag this Judgment!Omega Cables Ltd. Rep. by Its General Manager Vijendra Samuel Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(203)ELT24(Mad); 2008[11]STR100
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of Mandamus forbearing the first respondent from collecting the recovery of arrears, Central Excise Duty, vide communication dated 24.11.2005 in C.No. IV/16/109/05 by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise dated 24.11.2005 confirmed vide order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (South Zonal Bench) in final order No.825/05 dated 9.6.2005.2. Admittedly, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in final order No.825 of 2005 dated 9.6.2005, allowed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai against the order in Appeal No.78 of 1998 (M-II) dated 13.3.1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals Chennai). Pursuant to the order passed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, the first respondent has raised a demand on the petitioner herein. Against that demand, the above writ petition has been filed.3. It...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkumar Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve City ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ683
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. It is the case of the petitioner that he was directly recruited Grade-II Police Constable on 15.04.1997. After undergoing training, the petitioner was serving in the T.N. Special Police X Battalion, Ulundurpet and after serving there for three years, he was transferred to AR Chennai City Police in March 2000. He has received a number of awards and has not come to adverse notice so far.2. The petitioner submits that he has been implicated in a criminal case alleging that he has allowed Kalai, Karthi, Guna and Mani to stay at his residence situated at Police Quarters No. 10, E Block, Thiruvottiyur AR Police Quarters on 29 and 30.04.2005. He has been implicated as 9th accused in Crime No. 123/2005 on the file of Mangalam P.S., Thiruvannamalai District for offences Under Section 341, 312, 302, 212 and 216 IPC. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has allowed four accused who were involved in a murder case to stay at his residence situated at AR Police q...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bank of India, Branch at Krishnagiri, Rep. by Its Branch Manag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad227; (2006)1MLJ462
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioner has sought for setting aside the Order dated 16.7.2004 made in LA. No. 30 of 2004 in O.S. No. 19 of 2004 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit.2. The petitioner herein has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,40,628 with subsequent interest from the respondent/defendant and it filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 30 of 2004 under Section 151, C.P.C. to reopen the suit and permit the petitioner/plaintiff to examine one Vijaya Kumar, Former Manager, as witness on its side and that application was opposed and the trial Court dismissed the application and challenging the same, the present revision is preferred.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.4. The trial Court has dismissed the application on two grounds. The first ground is that on deletion of Order 18, Rule 11-A, C.P.C, which provided for leading of additional evidence, ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam Charitable Trust and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad230
R. Banumathi, J.1. The Plaintiffs have filed the Suit seeking permission/authorisation to dispose of the Suit Schedule properties being Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences and Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Sankara Hospital in 'as is where is' basis in favour of M/s. Chettinad Hospitals, so as to enable the Plaintiff Trust to discharge the liabilities. 2. Case of the Plaintiffs is as follows: The First Plaintiff is a Charitable Trust founded by one T. J. Mani by a Deed of Settlement dated 27-11-1987 for charitable purposes including relief to the poor, education, medical relief and any other object of general public utility. The First Plaintiff Trust is represented by its Chairman and Managing Trustee B. Chandrasekhar the Second Plaintiff. Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences and Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Sankara Hospital were established in the year 2003 by the First Plaintiff herein with a view to provide medical education at an affordable cost to deserving students...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Simpson and General Finance Co. Ltd. (N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: [2006]285ITR431(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.The tax case Appeals Nos. 1452 to 1455 of 2005 are directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in M.P. Nos. 188 to 191/Mds/2004 in W.T.A. Nos. 258 to 261/Mds/96 dated 5-11-2004 for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1994-95.2. The revenue is the appellant. The assessment years involved are 1991-92 to 1994-95. the assessee filed a return of wealth for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1994-95. It was found that the value adopted for the property situate at Sembiam and Madhavaram. was very low. The values were obtained from the District Valuation Officer, and the assessing officer fixed the value based on the valuation officer's report.3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) following the Tribunal's order for earlier years directed the assessing officer to redo the assessment as per the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's directions for the earlier years.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Jai Bharath Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: [2006]287ITR485(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.The above tax case appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal dt. 18th July, 2005 made in ITA Nos. 1164 and 1165/Mad/2001 for the asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97, respectively.2.1 The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment years involved are 1995-96 and 1996-97. The case of the appellant is that the assessee-company is a hundred per cent export unit manufacturing cotton yarn and exporting it to foreign countries. It started business in the year 1993-94. Since it was 100 per cent export oriented unit, it claimed exemption under Section 10B of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on condition that if the AO arrives at positive income after making additions in the assessment order for the export oriented unit, exemption under Section 10B of the Act should be allowed in the assessee's case. The assessee-company had returned loss of Rs. 42,59,637 and 78,41,439 in its return of income for the asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97. T...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Mad)381; [2006]283ITR329(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appeals are directed, against the order dt. 5th June, 2003 made in ITA Nos. 999, 1000, 1001 and 1002/Mad/2000 for the asst. yrs. 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 2. The brief facts of the case are stated as under: The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of chit and finance. During the survey, it was found that the assessee had accepted the cash deposits of more than Rs. 20,000 in contravention of Section 269SS of the Act. Hence, after giving an opportunity pursuant to the show-cause notice, the Jt. CIT imposed a penalty by exercising the power under Section 271D of the Act, equal to the amount of deposits in excess of Rs. 20,000 received in cash during the period relevant to the asst. yrs. 1996-97 to 1999-2000. Hence, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who allowed the appeal, which was subsequently confirmed by the Tribunal. Hence, the above appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant raised the following substan...
Tag this Judgment!D. Rajalakshmi Vs. the Correspondent, Chinmaya Vidyalaya Matriculation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC168; (2006)2MLJ233
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, challenging the impugned order of termination passed by the 1st respondent dated 11.5.2004 and to quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential monetary benefits.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed as school assistant on 20.10.1982 and later she was allowed to take classes for U.K.G. till 1998 and then she was allowed to take classes for 1st standard. Accordingly for the past 22 years she has been working sincerely without any blemish. She adds that she is the senior most teacher in the 1st respondent-school. While so, to her utter shock and dismay, she received a letter on 20.5.2004 of the 1st respondent dated 11.5.2004 stating that on a restructuring exercise and one of the processes is to size down the strength of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »