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.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sharp Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: [2006]282ITR336(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, against the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'D' Bench dated 30.06.2005 in I.T.A. No. 530/Mds/2 002, for the assessment year 1993-94, raising the following substantial question of law. 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of interest income under Section 80HHC and 80I of the Income Tax Act?'2. The assessment year is 1993-94. The assessee firm is a manufacturer and seller of HP Monoblock pumps. Their claim with regard to deduction under Section 80HHC and 80I of the Income Tax Act was disallowed under Section 154 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), who allowed the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the grou...
T. Muthukaruppan Vs. G. Raghavan, Rep. by His Power of Attorney, K. Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC108; 2006CriLJ1078; 2006(2)KLT996
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J. 1. Crl.O.P. No.1354 of 2002 is filed against C.C. No.7611 of 1998 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.2. Crl.O.P. No.1355 of 2002 is filed against C.C. No 7607 of 1998 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.3. Crl.O.P. No.1356 of 2002 is filed against C.C. No 7608 of 1998 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.4. Crl.O.P. No.1356 of 2002 is filed against C.C. No 7610 of 1998 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.5. The petitioner is the accused in all the aforesaid case launched against him for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The payee G. Raghaven in Crl.O.P. No. 1354 of 2002, the payee G.Venkatesan in Crl.O.P. No. 1355 of 2002, the payee G. Vijayakumar in Crl.O.P. No. 1356 of 2002 and the payee Tmt. G. Ramani in Crl.O.P. No. 1357 of 2002 have filed a complaint through their power of attorney, K. Gopalakrishnan.6. The payee G. Raghaven i...
Nallaperumal Stores (Firm) (rep. by Its Partner K. Jayapalan) Vs. Regi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR1193]; (2006)1MLJ554
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J. 1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the summons issued under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in summons No. TN/29465/TNY/ENF 1(4) of 1997, dated July 23, 1997, calling upon the petitioner to appear in the enquiry so as to determine the amount due from the petitioner under the provisions of the Act for the period from November, 1985 to September 1989. As per the summons, the petitioner was directed to appear on August 12, 1987 and represent the case. As against this summons the writ petition has been filed.2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a partnership firm formed in the year 1985 engaged in the sale of textile goods and that the petitioner had employed less than 10 workmen till July, 1989 and August, 1989 the strength of the workmen crossed 20 and therefore the petitioner voluntarily got covered under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner was also allotted code number ...
Velayutham S/O Somasundaram Vs. Venugopal S/O Adhimoolam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC468; (2006)1MLJ446
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. This Civil Revision is preferred by the proposed 17th Defendant in the suit who was impleaded as Legal Representative of the deceased 10 th Defendant by name Somasundaram and who died on 10.10.1993. 2. The first Respondent/Plaintiff has filed O.P.No.17 of 1989 on the file of the Sub-Court, Cuddalore, seeking to declare him as an informa pauper, declaration of his title to nine items of suit properties situated in Koothapakkam Village, Cuddalore Taluk and for recovery of possession on the ground that the District Revenue Officials arrayed as first and second Defendants were influenced by the Defendants 3 to 6, engulfing his property unlawfully under the guise of patta proceedings and also in collusion with defendants 7 and 9. In the Original Petition, it was further alleged that the deceased 10th Defendant Somasundaram had also purchased one specific portion of the suit property as per a sale deed dated 26.6.1980. Among 9 items, subject matter of suit, the a...
Radha Gopalakrishnan and Sudha Vijayakumar Vs. M. Rajendran, Latha and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC457; (2006)1MLJ334
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order dated 22.12.20 03 by the District Munsif, Poonamallee in I.A.No.305 of 2003 in O.S.2 74 of 1997, which was an application preferred by the revision petitioners/ plaintiffs 1 and 3 on 12.02.2003 under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, seeking permission to withdraw the suit filed by them with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action.2. That was a suit filed by these petitioners and others Radha, Geetha and Sudha, who are among the five foster daughters of late M.G. Ramachandran, who expired on 24.12.1987 when his Will dated 18.01.1987 came into operation, wherein the executor was Mr.N.C.Raghavachari and alternatively under such circumstances the present first defendant Rajendran. The said Will was probated in O.P.No.388 of 1992 and according to the same, there was life estate given to Mrs.Janaki, widow of the deceased and after whose death that took place on 10.05.1996 the three plaintiffs along with tw...
Ranka Corporation Vs. Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST272(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner challenges the correctness of the order made in O.P.No. 1688 of 2003 dated January 30, 2004. The petitioner's place of business has been inspected by the Enforcement Wing officials on November 3, 1999. On the basis of the information gathered a D3 proposal was sent to the jurisdictional assessing officer. Based on the D3 proposal, the assessing officer by his pre-assessment notices dated May 3, 2002 and February 14, 2003 called upon the petitioner to file objections to the proposal to levy tax on the sale of REP licence for a sum of Rs. 9,29,531 at four per cent and also levy of penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short, 'the TNGST Act') at 150 per cent. In response to the proposal to levy penalty, the petitioner by reply dated March 31, 2003 while expressing their financial position sent a sum of Rs. 20,000 towards tax liability and requested for waiver of penalty. After taking note of the objec...
Vellingiri Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1082
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The first accused (A.1) in Sessions Case No.459 of 2002 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and also fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, has filed the above appeal. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 324 IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution is briefly stated hereunder:(a ) About 10 days prior to the occurrence, PW.1, PW.2 and one Karthick, after visiting Mettupalayam, were returning home, near Subham Theatre around 8.30 p.m., when Velliangiri (A1), Sivakumar (A3), Nagaraj (A2), Sampath (A4) came from opposite side, by inadvertence, PW.2 grazed A.1; infuriated A.1 and others, threatened them with dire consequences. Thereafter, PWs.1 and 2 ...
State by Public Prosecutor, High Court Vs. Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1219
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the respondent/accused in Special Case No. 3 of 1993 on the file of the Special Judge and Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalattu as per the judgment dated 8.4.1996. 2. The respondent/accused was charged in respect of the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 419, 467 and 471 read with Section 467 I.P.C. and Section 82(c) and (d) of Indian Registration Act and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and after trial, the accused was found not guilty and accordingly acquitted, which is under challenge in this appeal. 3. The brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:- (a) In Korattur village 7.91 acres of Government poramboke land classified as grazing ground poramboke in Saidapet Taluk and there was a ban on converting this poramboke land into any other classifications of poramboke land. The dec...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V. Chinnapandi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Mad)13; [2006]282ITR389(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue, under Section 260A of the IT Act against the order of the Tribunal in 'C' Bench, Chennai in ITA No. 1594/Mad/1998 dt. 24th July, 2002 and the appeal was admitted in terms of the following substantial question of law :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assesses is eligible for full deduction under Section 80HHC without restricting to the amount received by way of interest were incidental to the export business as fixed deposits is valid in law ?2. The facts leading to the above question of law are as under :(i) The assessee is a specified HUF. The assessment year is 1995-96 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31st March, 1995. The assessee filed his return of income on 29th Nov., 1995 admitting a gross total income of Rs. 9,66,389 and claiming deduction of an amount of Rs. 9,37,057 under Section 80HHC. The case was proceeded under Sect...
V. Dhivakaran Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)28; [2006]282ITR225(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The Appellant Assessee has filed this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'C' Bench in IT (SS) No. 187/Mds/1998 dated 26.02.2001 and the appeal was admitted in terms of the following substantial questions of law:1. Is the assessment, along with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, liable to be set aside as illegal because no notice under Section 158BC was issued after an order of transfer by notification dated 13.4.1998 of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy which itself took effect only from 16.4.1998?2. Is the order of assessment dated 3.12.1998 barred by limitation, especially when the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had not found the mandatory period of limitation saved by anything stated in Sub-section (2) of Section 158BE of the Income Tax Act?3. Should the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have held that the earlier order dated 30.9.1996 under Section 127 o...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »