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.
Anthony @ Anthonyraj Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC322
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Petitioner herein is the detenu, who has been branded as Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, detained by the order of detention dated 15.6.2005, challenges the same in this petition.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the detention order on the following three grounds.(a) Firstly, the learned counsel submitted that in the paper book supplied along with the grounds of detention, at page No. 25, which is the List of Property sent to the Magistrate, the date is mentioned as '24.6.2005'. The date of despatch is also mentioned as '24.6.2005'. According to the learned counsel, mentioning of date as '24.6.2005', that is, after the date of the impugned detention order dated 15.6.2005, shows the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.(b) Secondly the learned counsel pointed out that at page No. 61 of the paper book, which is the arrest report, the detenu is arrayed as A-1 and one Suresh is arrayed as A-2...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Loyal Textile Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Mad)251; [2006]284ITR658(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard. The above appeals are preferred under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act 1961 against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras Bench 'C' dated 8.2.2005 in I.T.A.No.2704/Mds/96 & 51/Mds/97.2. The facts in brief are : The assessee company is a textile mill, engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. For the assessment year 1993-94, the assessing officer, by an order dated 28.3.1996, disallowed the claim of the assessee in respect of replacement of old machinery by new one on the ground that the same cannot be treated as a revenue expenditure; recalculated the benefit under Section 80HHC by including the excise duty and sales tax to the total turnover; disallowed the claim of the deduction pertaining to loss on revaluation of the tools which is in the nature of capital asset; and also treated the compensation received from the insurance as a revenue receipt. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(Appeals...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Sundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: [2006]284ITR687(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 945, 913 & 939/Mad/2004, dt. 10th Feb., 2005.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment year is 2001-02. The case of the appellant is that the assessees/respondents herein, availed the benefit of the voluntary retirement scheme and claimed exemption of the amount of compensation received, both under Section 10(10C) and Section 89(1) of the IT Act.3. The AO granted exemption as envisaged under Section 10(10C) of the Act, but denied the exemption under Section 89(1) of the Act, on the ground that once exemption under Section 10(10C) is allowed, Section 89(1) cannot be invoked. On appeal at the instance of the assessee, the CIT(A), taking the view that it is possible to interpret the sections both ways, and where there is an ambiguity, the benefit should be given to the taxpayer, allowed the appeal, which was confirmed by the Tribunal, on appeal by the Revenue.4. Aggrieved by th...
Murugan and Ravikumar @ Kundu Ravi Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1085; 2006(1)CTC821
P. Sathasivam, J.1. One Ravikumar @ Kundu Ravi (A1) in Sessions Case No. 354 of 2000 on the file of Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. I) Chingleput, who suffered the punishment of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default six months rigorous imprisonment, has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1370 of 2003. The second accused, viz., Murugan in the same Sessions Case questioning his conviction under Section 376(g) read with 34 IPC and sentence to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default six months rigorous imprisonment, has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1016 of 2003. The third and 4th accused who suffered imprisonment of 10 years and 4 years respectively have not filed appeal.2. The case of the prosecution is briefly stated hereunder:(a) The deceased Rajeswari, on 28.05.1999 morning went to Madras Christian College to get an application form for the college admission. Since she did not return home, PW.15, mother of the deceased, went in sea...
C. Ayyadurai Vs. the Special Tahsildar, Adidravida Welfare and State o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ561
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner and the affidavit has been signed by the second son of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the land to the extent of 80 cents bearing Survey No.158/1d and also holder of 1/3 share of land in Survey No.158/1c. Proceedings were initiated by the respondents for acquiring of lands situated in Peraiyur Taluk Mallapuram Village for providing house sites and pathway to Adidravidars of M.Perumal Patty village. 2. On 14.3.96 notice in Form I, Rule 3(i) as contemplated under Section 4(2)of the Tamilnadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, Tamilnadu Act XXXI of 1978 (hereinafter called the Act) was issued by the respondents and served on the petitioner personally on 28.3.1996. On 29.3.1996, the petitioner filed his detailed objection. The objections of the petitioner and other land owners were sent to the Collector for approval on 17.05.1996. The collector granted his appro...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Southern Roadways Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Mad)279; [2006]282ITR397(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 1687 and 1837/Mds/97 dated December 28, 2004.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved is 1994-95. The case of the appellant is that the assessee/respondent herein, engaged in the business of goods transport, filed its return declaring a total income of Rs. 87,94,210. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment, inter alia, made the following disallowances/additions : (i) disallowance of telex rent, telephone rent, postal franking machine rent, rates and taxes Rs. 4,74,649, (ii) disallowance of the prepaid expenditure Rs. 59,53,330, (iii) computer software and hardware upgradation expenses was treated as capital expenditure, and (iv) addition under Section 41(1) Rs. 6,21,863.3. Not satisfied with the order of the Assessing Officer dated December 6, 1996, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal...
K. Mani Vs. District Revenue Office and Special Commissioner and Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1371
E. Dharma Rao, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the second respondent in D.Dis.RA.V(1) 27571/2000 (AA.54/2000) dated 14.11.2000 and for a direction to the first respondent to grant licence to possess SBML gun for self/crop/cattle protection.2. The facts-in-brief leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are as follows: a. The petitioner, who is an agriculturist, is raising cash crops in his lands to an extent of 8 acres. He resides with his family in the farm-house, which is situated far away from the main road. He is also nurturing cattle and goats. As there is danger from the wild animals to his crops and family members, on 3.6.1999, he applied for a gun licence under Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959, for possessing a smooth bore muzzle loading gun for bona fide crop protection. The first respondent, who received the application, called for remarks. b. Though the Tahsildar and the local police recommended for grant of licence, the Superin...
Ayyanar and Perumal Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ567
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice issued by the second respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer. 2. The first petitioner is the brother of the second petitioner. The case of the first petitioner is that he is running a Rice Mill in Madurantakam Village and he is the consumer of electricity under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board; there was no complaint whatsoever since 1 990 when the Unit was put to operation; a new building was constructed in August 1997 and machineries were installed to establish a modern Rice Mill with higher load of 67 H.P. as against the existing load of 30 H.P; the officers of the respondents-Electricity Board have been regularly inspecting the Mill and there was no complaint of irregularity; that on 9.11.1997, the first petitioner had given a complaint to the Electricity Board that the wire from the electric post to the Mill was burnt; similar complaints were given on several occasions previously; on 14.11.19...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipment ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR1190]
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the Employees' State Insurance Court, dated January 2, 1997, in E.S.I.O.P. No. 54 of 1992, wherein, the Employees' State Insurance Court, while allowing the said O.P. filed by the first respondent herein, in part and set aside the order impugned before it, namely, the one, dated December 18, 1991, held that the first respondent is liable to pay contribution at the rate of 10 per cent on the amount paid to respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the first respondent is stated to have engaged second and third respondents as their catering contractors for supply of lunch to their executives and the management staff of the factory at Huzur Gardens, Sembium, Madras-11 on all working days. The said engagement was based on the contract entered into between the first respondent and the second and third respondents. As per the contract, the second and third respondents ag...
Cit Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Mad)385
P.D. Dinakaran, J.The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1464/Mad/2000, dated 16-7-2005.2. The revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved is 1996-97. The assessee-firm is a manufacturer and seller of sugar. A sum of Rs. 75,48,141, being the price difference realised between levy sugar price and the free market sugar sale price received as an incentive provided by the Central Government excluded from the total income. However, the assessing officer added the said amount to the income and disallowed the Government subsidy holding that the said receipt represents sale price of sugar marketed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue on the ground that the assessee's case for assessment year 1993-94 was allowed by deleting the addition made by the assessing officer.3. Aggrieved by the same, the r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »