Chennai Court October 2006 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sangu Chakra Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2006
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Mad)215
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The tax case appeal Nos. 167 and 168 of 2003 are directed against the order dated 11.4.2002 in I.T.A. Nos. 1.959 & 1969/Mds/1995 for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively, on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras. The tax case appeal No. 106 of 2003 is directed against the order dated 5.3.2003 in ITA Nos. 765/Mds/1995 for the assessment year 1992-93 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, following its earlier order dated 11.4.2002 referred to above. Hence, all the appeals were heard and disposed of together.2.1. The revenue has preferred these appeals raising the following substantial question of law,Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing higher depreciation at 20% in respect of structures let out and structures used by employees for residence, over looking the fact that such structures are put non hotel use? under the common facts and circumstances of the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V.C. Kuganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2006
Reported in: [2007]293ITR15(Mad); (2009)20VST835(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras. The issue involved is common for all the tax cases and hence the counsel appearing for both the sides requested the Court to take up all the above matters together. Accordingly, all the matters are taken up together and the same are disposed of, by a common judgment. 2. The questions of law raised in the above appeals are as under:a) Tax Case (A) Nos. 224 to 226 of 2003, 1093 of 2004, 1293 to 1299 of 2005, 1175 of 2005:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating the transfer of the right to exhibit the films, as a sale of goods or merchandise for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC?b) Tax Case (A) No. 295 of 2005:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that, the right of exploitation ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Srinivasa Babu Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Panrutti (Rural) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST358(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in T.A. No. 163 of 1998 and Cross Objection Petition No. 239 of 1998 dated September 28, 1999. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the first respondent dealing in oil and oil cake during the relevant period, i.e., for the assessment year 1994-95. The petitioner has been effecting local sale as well as transferring the stock of oil to its agents in other States. The petitioner claimed exemption under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by filing form F declaration prescribed under the Act. It has also furnished other particulars as per the prescribed form F like, mode of despatch, proof of despatch, etc. However, the assessing officer rejected the claim of exemption, which has been confirmed by the appellate authorities. The correctness of the said order is now canvassed in this writ petition.2. Heard the learned Counsel on either side ...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhraj Bhawarlal and Ors. Vs. J. Parasmal and Sathrasala Venkatachull ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1610
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. Aggrieved over the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority holding that the second respondent is not a public trust and therefore the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is applicable to the premises, these Civil Revision Petitions are filed.2. In all these CRPs the petitioners are the tenants. The first respondent is the chief tenant and the second respondent is the trust, owner of the premises at No. 11, Kasi Chetty Street, Chennai-79. The tenants are in occupation of various shop portions paying a monthly rent of Rs. 10,050/= p.m., each. Except CRP. No. 1305 of 2005, in all the other CRPs, the first respondent filed RCOPs for eviction of the tenants on the ground of willful default in payment of rents for the period from December 1997 to April 1998. As regards CRP. No. 1305 of 2005, the RCOP was filed by the first respondent on the ground of subletting. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the RCOPs as not maintainable on ...
Tag this Judgment!Devinarayan Housing and Property Development (P) Ltd. Vs. C.R. Gobind
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1626
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The respondent herein filed a Claim Petition before the Learned Sole Arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the agreement for deciding the disputes arising out of the Construction Agreement dated 18.8.201 entered into between the respondent and the petitioner, who is the builder. During the course of the enquiry before the learned Arbitrator, the respondent wanted to mark the said Construction Agreement dated 18.8.2001 as an Exhibit. At that time, the revision petitioner filed a memo stating that the Construction Agreement cannot be marked as it is was insufficiently stamped and also that it was not registered. The respondent filed his counter to the memo and after a detailed enquiry, the learned sole Arbitrator dismissed the said memo. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner-builder has filed this revision.2. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, in view of Section 35 and Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act read with Article 5(i) c...
Tag this Judgment!Ravikumar Distilleries Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. the Cus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(113)ECC334; 2006LC334(Madras)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent pursuant to the order in Appeal No. C/161/2003 dated 9.6.2004 and quash the same. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the first respondent confirming the order of the second respondent non-suiting the petitioner for waiver of pre-deposit for maintaining the appeal before the second respondent. The precise case for disposal of the writ petition is that the petitioner imported blended scotch whisky and cleared the same on 31.8.2001 on payment of 210% duty as demanded by the respondents. Subsequently the respondents by show cause notice dated 12.2.2002 issued under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why short collection of additional duty should not be imposed on the import of the petitioner and thereupon an adjudication order was passed on 3.6.2002 confirming th...
Tag this Judgment!Pentamedia Graphics Limited, Ment and softowers Rep. by Dr. V. Chandra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: [2008]145CompCas327(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. These company applications are filed by the transferor and transferee companies, challenging the order of the Bombay Stock Exchange dated 13th June 2006 and to direct the Stock Exchange to list the shares of Mayajaal Entertainment Ltd.2. The prayer herein is the result of the approved Composite Scheme of Amalgamation, merger and compromise which provided for listing of the equity share capital of Mayajaal Entertainment Ltd. in the Madras Stock Exchange, Chennai, National Stock Exchange of India, Mumbai, and the Stock Exchange, Mumbai.3. It is stated by these applicants that during the course of the proceedings for sanction of the Companies' Scheme of Amalgamation, compromise and arrangement before this Court, the Madras Stock Exchange had already issued its No Objection letter and that the Stock Exchange, Mumbai alone did not indicate its No Objection. This Court passed an order dated 8.11.2004, approving the Scheme of Amalgamation, compromise and arrangement,...
Tag this Judgment!Salem Vivekananda English Institute, Vs. Vivekananda Kalvi Nilayam Pvt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC668; LC2007(1)190; (2006)4MLJ1620
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 6.2.2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Salem in unnumbered suit No. of 2002.2. Defendants 1 to 3 before the Principal District Judge, Salem are the revision petitioners before this Court. 3. The 1st respondent herein as plaintiff filed O.S. No. 1228/1999 on the file of the III Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai. The case of the 1st respondent/plaintiff is that they provide courses for spoken English, learning English etc. under the brand name Vivekananda Institute for more than 18 years. On application from the 2nd revision petitioner herein to run the institute at Salem, using the brand name, study materials and other materials were given to the 2nd revision petitioner by the 1st respondent/plaintiff on certain terms and conditions. Though franchise was given in the name of the 2nd revision petitioner, the 3rd revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent together with the 2nd revision peti...
Tag this Judgment!Suneka Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1695
P.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. Abudukumar Rajaratinam for the petitioner and Mr. P. Kumaresan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.2. The Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, who has been detained under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).3. In the grounds of detention, reference has been made to the order of conviction of the detenu on 29-10-2001 under Sections 4(1) and 8(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. There is also reference to alleged involvement of the detenu in Anti Vice Squad P. S. Cr. No. 37 of 2006 registered under Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of ITP Act. Besides the aforesaid two adverse cases, the order of detention is based on the alleged involvement of the detenue in Anti Vice Squad P. S. Cr. No. 44 of 2006 registered under Sections 3(1), 4(...
Tag this Judgment!Esther @ Gunabhooshanam Vs. S. Christopher Immanuel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC39
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2004 made in F.C.O.P. No. 1418 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Madras, allowing the petition filed by the respondent/husband for restitution of conjugal rights and directing the appellant/wife to restore to the respondent/husband all comforts and bliss of married life.2. Pending the above appeal, the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband have entered into a compromise, agreeing for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, and reduced the same into a joint memorandum of compromise dated 30.10.2006 bearing S.R. No. 92494, which reads as follows:Joint Memo of compromise filed by the parties:The appellant and respondent jointly and respectfully submit as follows:1. It is submitted that the above appeal is filed by the appellant against the respondent seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2004 in F.C.O.P. No. 1418 of 1998, on the file of the Principal Family J...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »