Chennai Court November 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mepco Industries Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Mad)642; [2007]294ITR121(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25.11.2005 made in ITA Nos.1901/Mds/2003 for the assessment year 1999-2000 and the following substantial questions of law have been raised for consideration:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order under Section 263 is ambivalent as to whether the order is erroneous and prejudicial or not merely because the CIT sent back the matter to the assessing officer to pass fresh orders after giving opportunity to the assessee?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, an order of revision under Section 263 should come to a final conclusion and should not remit the matter to the assessing officer?2. The brief facts of the case, as stated, are as follows:2.1. The relevant assessment year with which we are concerned is 1999-2000. The assessee company filed its return of income admitting the income of Rs. 3...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vaidyanathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ48
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. These two appeals have been filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, Villupuram against the common award passed in three different Motor Accidents Claim Original Petitions. The appellant however has chosen to prefer these appeals only as against O.P.Nos.38 of 1996 and 671 of 1996.2. According to the claimants, the accident occurred on 31.5.1992 at about 11.15 p.m. when the claimants were alighting from a private transport bus bearing Registration No. TAM-9595 at Rajapalayam Bus Stand and at that point of time, the transport bus was hit from behind by a lorry bearing Registration No. TN-31-Z-0021 belonging to the first respondent in O.P.No. 38 of 1996 before the Tribunal, which was stated to have been driven by the driver of the lorry in a rash and negligent manner. While the claimants in O.P. No. 38 of 1996 are the parents of the deceased girl aged about 9 years, the claimant in O.P. No. 671 of 1996 was by the mother for the injuries sustained by he...
G. Lakshmanan Vs. K. Kannan and the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ433
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The claimant is the appellant. The challenge is to the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai dated 23.1.2001 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 2623/1998. According to the appellant, on 3.6.1998 at 10.00 a.m., he was driving his autorickshaw bearing Registration No. TN-07-1751 in R.K. Shanmugam Salai from south to north when the ambassador car belonging to the first respondent bearing Registration No. TSB-2140 coming in the opposite direction driven by his driver in a rash and negligent manner hit against the appellant's autorickshaw and in that accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs as against the respondents. The claim was resisted by the second respondent contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant and that he did not sustain grievous injuries. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and examined the Doctor as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. O...
Rds Projects Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: (2007)8VST574(Mad)
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Mr. Haja Nazirudeen, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), waives service for the respondent.2. The writ petitioner/appellant is engaged in the business of carrying works contract for Government projects and is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as well as the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The petitioner has entered into a contract with Chennai-Ennore Port Road Company Limited for execution of 'sea protection works along Ennore expressway in Chennai'. For this work, the petitioner has purchased Volvo Hydraulic Excavator (Model: EC 210BLC) and Volvo Hydraulic Excavator (Model: EC360BLC) against 'C' form from M/s. Volvo India Pvt. Ltd. As these two machines were to be used for the sea protection works along the Ennore expressway in Chennai, after their purchase, the machines were brought inside the State of Tamil Nadu.3. For the assessment year 2004-2005, the petitioner reported ...
P.A.S. Industries, Rep. by Its Proprietor P. Sundaram Vs. the Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2006
Reported in: (2007)6VST671(Mad)
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing along with the writ appeal.2. The petitioner is a registered dealer both under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner is engaged in the business of sale of Compacting Machine to the Spinning Mills. For the year 2003-2004, the petitioner had reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 77,69,000/- exigible to tax at 4% and the same was duly accepted and assessment was finalised. Subsequently, the second respondent proposed a revision of assessment vide his proceedings, dated 24.2.2006 on the ground that Compacting Machinery dealt with by the petitioner would fall under Entry No. 20 of Part D of the First Schedule attracting 12% tax and penalty is also leviable for the shortfall of tax paid. The petitioner filed t...
Ramakrishnan Vs. Mayilsamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ72
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The fourth defendant in the suit is the appellant in this second appeal. The Plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed O.S. No. 590 of 1987 before the District Munsif Court, Pollachi for declaration to declare their title over the suit property, permanent injunction to restrain the third defendant/5th respondent herein from changing or cancelling the Patta dated 23.12.1986 issued in their favour under UDR Scheme and permanent injunction restraining the fourth defendant/appellant herein, defendants 5 and 6/respondents 7 and 8 herein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit was decreed as prayed for. The appeal filed by the appellant herein was also dismissed, hence the present second appeal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as they were arrayed before the trial court.3. It is an admitted fact that the suit lands are inam lands to an extent of 8.70 acres comprised in Survey No. 478/1A1 and 47...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. B. Desraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Mad)81; [2007]293ITR214(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'A' Bench dated 06.02.2003 passed in I.T.A. No. 2320/Mds/94. On 15.10.2003, this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial question of law. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of the duty drawback and the cash compensatory support is allowable even though no export was done by the assessee? 2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is an 100% Export Oriented Unit. The relevant assessment year is 1991-92 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.1991. The assessee filed Return of income on 30.11.1992 admitting a total income of Rs. 1,50,860/-. The Return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred t...
K.V. Nagarajan Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2006
Reported in: 2007(208)ELT165(Mad); 2007[5]STR325
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. These writ petitions arise out of the common order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai dated 11.3.2002 made in T.C.(R) No. 121 to 127 of 1998, raising a question, whether in a case, where, the petitioner has undertaken manufacture and supply of RCC Poles to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (for brevity, 'the Board') at an agreed rate, agreeing for the manufacturing work as per the terms of the agreement dated 17.3.1990 entered into between the petitioner and the Board, which agreement provides for supply of raw materials like cement and steel required for the work to be supplied by Board; the petitioner has to make his own arrangement for transport and storage of the said materials; if steel is not available with the Board, the petitioner may provide the required quantity for the work at his own cost, and recover the same out of the final bills; the petitioner has to return the excess materials and gunny bags after the completion of the work; the i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›