Chennai Court January 2006 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.
T. Kamatchi Vs. S. Murali @ Kanagasabapathy Village Administrative Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad159; 2006(2)CTC131; (2006)1MLJ418
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The petitioner/wife in the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, residing in Salem and who is the Respondent in H.M.O.P. No. 32 of 2004 on the file of Sub-Judge, Pattukottai for restitution of conjugal rights filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the Respondent, seeking for a transfer of the same from the Sub-Court, Pattukottai to the Family Court at Salem, on the ground of her physical and fiscal difficulty in travelling all the way from Salem to Pattukottai. She is an unemployed person aged 38, living with her younger brother, who is working as a clerk in a private company.2. The husband, who is Respondent in the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is an employee in the State Government as Village Administrative Officer, aged 47, living at Ettivayal Village of Pattukottai.3. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for either side and also considering the fact that the husband is employed and getting salary; whereas the ...
Mohan Enterprises Rep. by N. Mohan Vs. Mr. K. Ravishankar, Prop. R.J. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC538; (2006)1MLJ538
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The Revision Petitioner is the tenant, who was originally ordered to be evicted under Section 10(2)(vi) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control)Act, 1960, on the ground of disuse of the tenement; that order was passed on 29.8.2005 in R.C.A. No.71 of 2001 by the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the earlier order dated 3 1.10.2000 passed in R.C.O.P. No.1198 of 1997 by the Rent Controller, XIV Judge, Small Causes Court.2. The petition mentioned premises is Shop No. 3 at No. 9, Block A Bharathi Nagar I Street, Madras-17, which was originally occupied by the petitioner/tenant for running business of iron and wooden articles, which even according to him was shifted for the purpose of running a sweet stall with effect from 14.12.1997.3. Both the Courts below found in favour of the contention of the Respondent/landlord that between November 1996 to February 1997 the shop was under disuse by the petitioner/tenant.4. Section 10(2)(vi) of Tami...
Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Rep. by Its Dy. Secretary, M. Sank ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR1195]
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order Ref.No. C4/TN/CNI/4683/Exem/Regl/2001, dated March 1, 2001 and to quash the same.2. The facts in-brief leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:(a) The petitioner-Corporation is a public sector company having its factoryat Manali, where it is manufacturing Petroleum Products by employing 1700 permanent workmen and that apart, it engages contractors.(b) While so, a notice, dated October 16, 2000, was issued by the respondent directing the petitioner to produce attendance register and other documents in respect of the employees employed by the contractors from January 1, 1967 onwards.(c) The petitioner filed a preliminary counter statement, dated January 5, 2001, stating that it is not possible for the company to produce the documents in respect of the employees employed by the contractors for the period fro...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Everest Litho Press
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: [2006]285ITR297(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in not holding that the amounts of sales-tax on printing receipts collected by the assessee formed part of the assessee's trading receipts in view of the ratio of the Supreme Court's decisions in the cases of Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1973]87ITR542(SC) , Jonnalla Narashimharao & Co. and Ors. v. CIT : [1993]200ITR588(SC) and Sinclair Murrey Co. (P) Ltd. : [1974]97ITR615(SC) 2. The relevant assessment year is 1987-88 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 9th Sept., 1986. The respondent/assessee was carrying on printing work. The only point of dispute pertains to the inclusion of Rs. 19,685 representing the amounts collected towards sales-tax held by the assessee as contingent deposit. The AO made addition unde...
S. Sevugan Vs. the Chief Educational Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR926]; 2006(2)CTC468
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents. By consent of both the counsels, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing.2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 13.4.2005, under which the second respondent has transferred the petitioner to the Government High School, Aviyoor.3. Mr. V. Vivekanandan, Government Advocate taken notice on behalf of the respondents and reported before this Court after getting the instructions.4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a watchman on 2.2.1990 in the Government High School, Chettikurichi, Virudhunagar District and thereafter, transferred to Government High School, Aviyoor as Office Assistant on 3.7.1992, wherein he is working.5. Reference to the impugned order would show that two references stated in the impugned order, that one about the complaint by the pu...
Karnataka Commercial and Industrial Corporation Private Limited Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ117
D. Murugesan, J.1. As the issues involved in both the writ petitions arise under the same tender notification, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner-M/s Karnataka Commercial & Industrial Corporation Private Limited is engaged in the business of offering specialized services in the domestic airports. According to the petitioner, for the past 13 years, it has been successfully implementing and managing the issuance of Airport Entry Tickets in the Airports at Delhi, Hyderabad, Chennai, Bangalore, Ahmedabad and Goa. On 1.12.2003 the petitioner was awarded the licence for management of airport entry ticket contract at Chennai Airport for a period of two years and that the petitioner had successfully implemented the contract without any blemish. On 28.11.2005, the Airport Director, Airport Authority of India, Chennai Airport, Chennai, the second respondent issued a notice inviting tender for the grant of licence for the management of airport entry ticket (hereinafter re...
Cit Vs. S. Kannaiyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2006
Reported in: [2007]292ITR678(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed by the revenue under 1 Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29-8-2003, made in I. T. A. No. 1801/Mds/1996, raising the following substantial questions of law :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessing officer was not correct in invoking Sections 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the hands of the persons in whose names the monies stood invested on the ground that some members of the public have claimed monies as belonging to them and that too in the absence of any corroborative evidence ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that income, if any, on the unexplained investments should be considered in the hands of the firm especially when it had been found...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Mad)269; [2006]283ITR200(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard The above appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal, Madras Bench 'D'. dt. 29th March, 2005 in ITA No. 1023/Mds/1998. 2. The facts in brief are : The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of paper. For the asst. yr. 1993-94, the assessee filed a return of income and claimed set off of brought forward investment allowance pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1987-88, 1989-90 and 1990-91 amounting in all to Rs. 1.15 crores. The AO, by order dt. 31st March, 1997, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, initially allowed a set off amount to a sum of Rs. 98.27 lakhs. In the subsequent rectification order passed under Section 154 of the Act, the amount of carried forward and set off of investment allowance was varied to Rs. 98.59 lakhs. But, in the subsequent order dt. 12th Oct., 2000 passed under Section 154 of the Act, the AO withdrew the set off of brought forward investment allowance for the earlier years on the gro...
Cit Vs. K. Chinnathambi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2006
Reported in: [2007]292ITR673(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29-8-2003, made in I. T. A. No. 1812/Mds/1996, raising the following substantial questions of law :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessing officer was not correct in invoking Sections 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the hands of the persons in whose names the monies stood invested on the ground that some members of the public have claimed monies as belonging to them and that too in the absence of any corroborative evidence ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that income, if any, on the unexplained investments should be considered in the hands of the firm especially when it had been found th...
The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Mad)191; [2007]289ITR284(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeals are filed under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 by the Revenue, in W.T.A. Nos. 208/Mds/93, 209/Mds/93, 1215/Mds/93 & 354/Mds/94, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'D' Bench raising the following substantial question of law. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the written down value of the cars and jeeps owned by the assessed should be taken as the market value for the purposes of wealth tax? 2. The facts leading to the above question of law are as under: i) The assessee respondent is a company in which public are not substantially interested. By virtue of the amendment in Wealth Tax Act, the assessee respondent has become an assessable entity for wealth tax. By filing a Return, the assessee admitted only written down value of the cars and jeeps, as the market value. The Assessing Officer held that the insured value of the vehicles as furnished by the assess...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »