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.
Lakshmi Auto Components Ltd. Vs. the Dy. Commissioner of I.T.,
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: (2008)303ITR29(Chennai)
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of she C.I.T. (Appeals)-IV, Chennai dated 2.2.1999. The relevant assessment year involved in this appeal is I 997-98.2. The issue in this appeal is against the disallowance of whose of the rights issue expenses of v. 9.94.594/- under prima facie adjusment in the intimation Under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and levy of additional tax Under Section 143(1A) of the Act. The facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return admitting an income of Rs. 6.23.07,990/-. The return of income was arrived at by the assessee after claiming in its memo of income amounting to Rs. 19.94.954/- as an expenditure allowance Under Section 37 of the Act and the said amount was incurred to wards rights issue during the year order consideration.The return was processed Under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and the intimation was forwarded to the assessee wherein prima facie adjustment was made by disallowing the claim of the assessee on the...
The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(198)ELT6(Mad); (2006)2MLJ603
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The writ petition is filed to quash the interim order dated 29.9.200 4 passed by the Settlement Commission, Customs and Central Excise, Mumbai. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 4.2.2005 and notice was ordered. Counter was filed by respondents 1 to 4, 6 to 13.3. The petitioner herein issued show cause notice dated 24.9.2002 to respondents 1 to 13 herein alleging that the fifth respondent in collusion with the first respondent, while engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs, committed willful act of evasion of duty and the other respondents abetted the same and have contravened the provisions of Sections 68 and 71 of the Customs Act rendering themselves liable for the payment of customs duty of Rs.1,71,91,550/- The respondents challenged the show cause notice before this Court in W.P.No.6157 of 2003 and this Court, by order dated 24.9.2003, directed the respondents herein to send a reply to the show cause notice raising all issues.4. The first respondent herein...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V.R. Venkatachalam L/H of Npv Ramaswamy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: [2008]301ITR236(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Revenue not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal confirming the order of CIT(A) deleting a sum of Rs. 1,28,27,860 from the taxable income of the assessee, filed the present appeal by framing the following substantial questions of law :1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had no unexplained investments with the AOP by name M.G. Enterprises to the tune of about 1.29 crores ?2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of unexplained investments of about Rs. 1.29 crores by relying solely on an affidavit of M.G. Enterprises and without appreciating the evidence of the incriminating documents seized at the time of the search ?3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had enough material to conclude that the assessee had no unexplained investments ?The relevant assessment year is 1985-86.2. Simultaneous ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.K. Senniappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)447; [2006]284ITR220(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian J.1. The assessee is engaged in the business of chit fund and real estates. A search under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), was conducted in respect of one A.P. Shanmugaraj and others on July 1, 1998. The documents seized during the course of such search indicated that the assessee had utilised undisclosed income for making contributions to certain unregistered chits conducted by the said A.P. Shanmugaraj. On July 14, 1998 a survey was conducted in the business premises of the assessee which indicated certain real estate transactions carried on by the assessee and profits derived thereon have not been reported to the Department. The Assessing Officer after receiving the returns filed by the assessee, included under Section 158BB of the Act the undisclosed income found out during the search (?) made under Section 133A of the Act, That order was carried on appeal and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has excluded that portion of ...
S. Jeyasheela Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ438
R. Sudhakar, J.1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 31.12.1993 and the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.4335/94, dated 22.05.1996.2. The case of the petitioner is that she was employed as Accountant in the second respondent society, three charge memos, were served on her. Criminal proceedings were also initiated. The second respondent-Society appointed Mr.Sam Sundar, Advocate as the Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings.3. Petitioner filed Civil Suit in O.S.No.396 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, questioning the suspension order dated 12.04.1993 passed against the writ petitioner. The third respondent Mr.Sam Sunder, Advocate filed a vakalat on behalf of the second respondent-Society and contested the case on merits. Therefore, the petitioner objected to the appointment of the Third respondent as Enquiry Officer, however, the enquiry proceeded further and the third respon...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Mad)548; [2006]287ITR50(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeals are at the instance of the Revenue against the orders of the Tribunal. The assessee was a company distributing electricity in Vellore area. The Government of Tamil Nadu by its order dt. 1st July, 1974 has taken over the assessee's business. In respect of grant of compensation and its quantum, the assessee carried the matter upto Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by its order dt. 6th Jan., 1995 granted compensation in a sum of Rs. 51,45,536 and interest on the compensation in a sum of Rs. 59,14,533. Pursuant to the order, as the interest arising in each year of account has to be assessed in the concerned assessment year, the AO reopened the assessment under Section 148 read with Section 150 of the IT Act and assessed the interest. That order was canvassed in appeal before the CIT(A) unsuccessfully. However, the Tribunal has allowed the appeals by the assessee. Hence, the Revenue is before this Court by way of appeal.2. The point in controversy in thi...
V. Jeyaraman Vs. Indian Bank, Represented by the General Manager (D.H. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ659Mad; (2006)1MLJ367
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the respondent dated 29.03.2001, under which the respondent has intimated the petitioner that he is not eligible for pensionary benefits. It is the petitioner's case that he joined the respondent bank on 26.06.1978 as a Clerk and retired from the services of the bank on 31.12.2000 under 'Voluntary Retirement Scheme'. While he was working in the Kodambakkam Branch of the Indian Bank, there was a Pension Scheme called 'I.B. Pension Scheme Regulation', under which a proposal for voluntary retirement was directed to be opted by the intended employees of the bank on or before 26.01.1996. It is his further case that on 18.01.1996, he exercised his option to become a member of the said Pension Scheme and his option letter was despatched to the Pension Department along with the option letter of one Pandian, who was the Chief Manager in the respondent bank at that time. Subsequently, he voluntarily retired from the se...
Tirunelveli Diocese Trust Association, represented by It's Secretary M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ523
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.01.2002 passed by the second respondent, under which, the second respondent, while setting aside the order dated 31.07.2000 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli, has directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to include the name of the first respondent as a joint pattadar in respect of S. No. 149 (T.S. No. 59/1), Palayamchettikulam Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District, along with the writ petitioner. The said impugned order was passed by the second respondent in the revision filed by the first respondent challenging the order dated 31.07.2000 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli.2. The facts involved in the present case are as follows:The petitioner is a registered minority religious trust. The trust has obtained 10.05 acres of land in S. No. 149 in Palayamchettikulam Village on a perpetual lease from one Kumarasamiah Pillai under a lease deed dated 01.11.1927. T...
Lalitha and Govindan Vs. Selvaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad122; 2006(2)CTC24; (2006)1MLJ313
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The plaintiffs in the suit are appellants. The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction.2. Case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff is the daughter of second plaintiff and the defendant is the son of the second plaintiff. The suit property was originally a house site. The TADCO, under a scheme, has built up superstructure to the persons belonging to Schedule Castes. The house site given by the said Corporation to the first plaintiff was sold by her to the defendant. The site, which was given to the second plaintiff / father is the suit property. The defendant was also allotted another house site. In the house site given to the second plaintiff, the second plaintiff has put up a compound wall, apart from effecting some changes. The house site given to the second plaintiff is adjacent to the house site given to the defendant. The second plaintiff has been enjoying the suit property from 1978 onwards and thereafter, on settlement, he has given the s...
Thangammal (Died), Vs. V. Ramasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad163; 2006(2)CTC206; (2006)1MLJ363
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants in both the courts below are the appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiff, V. Ramasamy has filed a suit for declaration and possession in respect of the suit property apart from seeking mesne profits. According to the plaintiff, he is the only son of Venkatrama Gounder who had pre-deceased wife Karuppakkal and Venkatrama Gounder died on 12.1.1984. In a partition deed between Venkatrama Gounder and his brothers dated 5.10.1951, the suit properties were allotted to Venkatrama Gounder. The plaintiff by virtue of his birth is entitled for half share and after the death of Venkatrama Gounder, the plaintiff has inherited his another half share and therefore, he has become entitled to the entire suit property.2. It is the further case of the plaintiff that after the death of his mother, taking advantage of the fact that his father Venkatrama Gounder lived alone, the defendants started living with him and fabricated documents. One among ot...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »