Chennai Court November 2006 Judgments
Anjuga Chit Funds (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: (2008)113ITD67(Chennai)
1. These appeals by different assessees are directed against different orders of the CIT(A) for the above block assessment year. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, they were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The brief facts of the case are that there was a search in this case under Section 132 of the IT Act on 29th Dec, 1998 for which common search warrant was issued and also common Panchnama was drawn in respect of M/s Anjuga Chit Funds (P) Ltd. and M/s Anjuga Finance & Investments. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that since a common warrant was issued in the joint names of two persons by a common authorized officer and common supporting staff, the warrant is not valid and also common Panchnama was drawn in the case of the above two parties and that Panchnama was also invalid. He further submitted that the term use...
Tag this Judgment!The Central Board of Film Certification, Rep. by Its Chairperson, Mini ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC1
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. 'Kutra Pathirikai' is the feature film produced by the first respondent. The film revolves around the assassination of the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and the subsequent events including the investigation and the fate of assassins or some of the abettors/conspirators. The love story woven around two police officials having no connection with the assassination of late Prime Minister or the attempted assassination of the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, which forms only an infinitesimal portion of the film. After making the film, the producer submitted an application for the grant of certificate to the Central Board of Film Certification ('Board' for short) on 31.12.1992. However, the certificate for exhibition of the film was refused by the Censor Board on 31.02.1994 and that too, after the intervention of this Court. It would be relevant to quote the reasons by the Examining Committee (for trailer) as per the expert opinion of the Home Ministry which run as f...
Tag this Judgment!Association of Management of Hindu Educational Institution Rep. by Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC30
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Association of Management of Hindu Educational Institution, Tamil Nadu, has filed W.A. No. 525 of 2001 as against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 14.12.2000, in W.P. No. 21047 of 2000, in and by which, the learned Judge dismissed the said Writ Petition challenging the Government Order by which the 'maintenance grant' was reduced from 4% to 2%.The Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School Managers' Association, in W.P. No. 21903 of 2000, seeks for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent/State Government in connection with impugned G.O.D. No. 174, School Education (B2) Department, dated 23.06.2000, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant the 'maintenance grant' at 4% as hitherto done.In WP No. 1722 of 2001, North Arcot Ambedkar and Sambuvarayar District Recognised Private Aided Primary and Middle Schools Managers and Teacher Managers Association, Vellore, prays for the issuance o...
Tag this Judgment!Chemfab Alkalis Limited, Rep. by Its Company Secretary Mr. S. Ramanuja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ338
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Since both the writ petitions are with regard to the same issue and common in nature, both the writ petitions are taken up together and a common order is passed.W.P. No. 32655 of 2005:The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the No Objection Certificate issued by the first respondent, on 31.8.2005, bearing No. 12505/DM/20/D3/2005, in favour of the third respondent, quash the same, and to forbear the respondents from permitting or setting up any petroleum retail outlet near the vicinity of the petitioner's factory at Kalapet, Pondicherry and particularly at R.S. No. 130/3A of 21, Pillachavadi Revenue Village, Pondicherry. W.P. No. 5452 of 2006:The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the licence, dated 28.10.2005, vide Licence No. P/SC/PY/14/110 (P136235), issued by the first respondent in favour of the th...
Tag this Judgment!Elephant G. Rajendran President, Madras High Court Practicing Advocate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1406
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner, in his capacity as a practicing advocate and the President of the Madras High Court Practicing Advocates Association, invoking Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity, 'the Act') has preferred this contempt petition to (a) punish the first respondent for his deliberate, willful, false allegations made against a Hon'ble Judge of this Court, thereby interfering with the proceedings of this Court and for threatening the Judiciary; and (b) direct the second respondent to submit a report about the aforesaid incidence happened on 1.11.2006.2.1. According to the petitioner, the first respondent with reference to the judicial proceedings which had taken place on 17.10.2006 before the Division Bench of this Court presided over by S.J. Mukhopadhaya and F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ., required S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. to tender regret for the remarks made during the course of the judicial proceedings, failing which, threatened to lead an ...
Tag this Judgment!Lt. Col. Joseph George (Retd.) Rep. by His Power of Attorney Agent Ant ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ385
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 05.08.96 made in C.M.A. No. 13/95 on the file of the District Judge, Ooty (arising out of O.S. No. 363/93, District Munsif, Coonoor), confirming the order of return of the plaint in O.S. No. 363/93. Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.2. The case of the Plaintiff is that:The Defendants have entered into an agreement of sale with the Plaintiff on 29.12.92 and the Defendants had delivered the possession of the suit property for the purpose of development and the Plaintiff has also submitted a building plan to the Bairnatty Panchayat. According to the Plaintiff, he had also dug a well in the suit property by spending over Rs. 40,000/-. Stating that the Defendants are trying to disturb his possession and that the Defendants had declared that they will not go by the agreement and to restrain the Defendants from in any manner interfering with the Plaintiff's possession or developmental activities in respect o...
Tag this Judgment!G. Anand Vs. the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Ad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2006
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC723
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. In all these cases, the petitioners who have served as Special Thasildars Adi Dravidar Welfare in Kankeyam, Erode District and subsequently, transferred to various other places have been served with the impugned charge memo, calling upon the petitioners to submit explanations.2. A reference to the impugned charge memo shows that in respect of acquisition of 0.99.5 hectares land in Re-Survey No. 82/C1 for the construction of housing plots for Adi Dravidar Community people, the Special Tahsildar by his order dated 24.12.1992 has fixed the price of the lands per acre at Rs. 8,400/-, since the owners have requested for enhanced amount of compensation, a reference was made by the Special Tahsildar, Kankeyam to the Sub-court, Darapuram under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and in O.P. No. 4 of 1993 an enhanced amount of Rs. 15,000/- per acre was ordered. As per the order dated 04.03.1994, it is also stated in the impugned charge memo that even as against the s...
Tag this Judgment!Subramaniam Vs. Gunasundari,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2006
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ241
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The revision petitioner is the first defendant in the suit. The suit has been filed for partition and separate possession by the first respondent herein stating that the first respondent constitutes a Hindu Joint Family along with defendants 1 and 2 and she is a co-parcener in the suit schedule properties and that she is entitled to one share as per Section 29A of the Hindu Successions Act and as the first defendant/revision petitioner is said to have executed a settlement deed in favour of the second defendant/second respondent herein, and sale deed in favour of the third defendant/3rd respondent on 25.09.1992, the suit was necessitated as the petitioner/first defendant do not have the right to alienate the share of the first respondent.2. The petitioner/first defendant resisted the suit stating that she was not in possession and the plaintiff eloped and got married in the year 1991 and that in a Panchayat arranged at her instance on 03.11.1991, she agreed to...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.V.M. Production
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2006
Reported in: [2007]293ITR22(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 908/Mds/1999 dated 27.3.2003.2. The Revenue is the appellant. During the relevant assessment year, viz., 1993-94, the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of transfer of exhibition of rights in regard to one print of a film outside India, was disallowed by the assessing officer holding that it would not amount to export of any goods or merchandise. Against the said order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeal, against which, the Revenue went on appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal also held the issue in favour of the assessee. Hence, the present tax case appeal by the Revenue raising the following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in...
Tag this Judgment!New Version Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST903(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. Petitioner is a dealer in computer spares and UPS at Chennai and is an assesse on the file of the respondent. For the assessment year 2003-04, they filed form Al returns and reported a total and taxable turnover in a sum of Rs. 1,65,61,083 and Rs. 26,04,154 respectively. The petitioner disclosed the taxable turnover in a sum of Rs. 26,04,154 under re-sale turnover at one per cent and claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 1,39,56,929. However, the respondent determined the taxable turnover in a sum of Rs. 1,69,15,233 as against the reported turnover in a sum of Rs. 26,04,154 by disallowing the claim of exemption relating to resale turnover in a sum of Rs. 1,39,56,929 on the ground that the details for the purchase of relevant goods and the reason for claiming exemption were not filed. The precise contention of the petitioner is that the statute requires that prior to framing the assessment, a pre-assessment notice has to be issued calling upon the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »