Chennai Court December 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 Wealth-tax Vs. Standard Fireworks Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2006
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Mad)99
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 27A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'C' Bench dated 16.05.2006 in W.T.A. No. 130/Mds/2004, raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the land being sold is to be treated as a business asset and exempt from wealth tax merely because the builder took possession after the valuation date?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that since the land is in possession of the assessee, it is capable of being used as a business asset and consequently should be treated as exempt, even though it was not actually used for storage of explosives as on the valuation date?2. The brief facts leading to the above questions of law are as under:The assessee is a closely-held Industrial Company engaged in the business of m...
The Correspondent, M.M. Higher Secondary School Vs. K. Mathur Kumar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC649
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Both the writ appeals have been preferred by the respective appellants against the common order dated 29.9.04 passed in W.P. No. 18900 of 2001.2. In W.A. No. 3776 of 2004, the Correspondent, M.M. Higher Secondary School, Bethelpuram, Kanyakumari District (hereinafter referred to as the school) is the appellant. In the other appeal, W.A. No. 593 of 2005, the Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai and the District Educational Officer, Thuckaley, Kanyakumari District are the appellants.3. The writ petition was preferred by the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) for direction on respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition, who are the appellants before this Court, to approve (hereinafter referred to as sanction) the petitioner's post and to pay him all the arrears of salary as was due since 1988 till the date of sanction of the post. The prayer made therein having been allowed, the appellants have challenged the impugned order.4. T...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Rahman Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2006
Reported in: [2007]293ITR475(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in I.T.A. No. 803/Mds/98 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'C' Bench. On 03.02.2004, this Court admitted this appeal and formulated the following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of Rs. 9,59,197/- being unclaimed balances written back in the profit and loss account relating to the assessment year 1993-1994? 2. The brief facts leading to the above questions of law are as under:The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of manufacture of shoes and tannery and also export sales of shoe uppers. The relevant assessment year is 1993-94 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.1993. The assessee filed Return of income on 15.12.1994 admitting the total income as nil. T...
Kumar and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2006
Reported in: 1(2007)DMC549
ORDERR. Regupathi, J.1. The petitioners are accused for an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC originally on the file of the first respondent police and subsequently on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Chennai. On conclusion of the investigation, final report has been filed and it is pending in C.C. No. 135 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Chengalpattu.2. The petitioners have filed a petition to quash the proceedings in Crl.O.P. No. 45245 of 2003 and the same was taken on file and notice has been issued to the respondent. In such circumstances, the present petition has been filed under Section 320, Cr.P.C. by both the parties. It has been stated that the dispute between the de facto complainant and the accused has been settled. The complainant has received a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 as future maintenance and also has submitted that the streedhana articles including the jewels have been received. The parties have agreed to dissolv...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nepc India Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2006
Reported in: [2008]303ITR271(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This tax case appeal has been preferred raising the following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable merely because the goods in question were sophisticated and specialised components? 2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under:2.1. The respondent/assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of wind turbine generators. The relevant assessment year is 1993-94. The Assessing Officer, finding that the purchase price of certain items from the sister concern of the assessee is inflated when compared to that quoted by the third parties, disallowed the sum of Rs. 3,54,76,323/- on account of such inflation under Section 40(A)(2) of the Income Tax Act (for brevity, 'the Act').2.2. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) remanded the matter bac...
Hawa Ummal Vs. Mohammed Yousuff (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ257
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the rejection of unfiled I.A. No. -/96 in I.A. No. 145 of 1985 in O.S. No. 12 of 1984 on the file of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal.2.Brief facts of the case are as follows:2.1. The Plaintiff has filed the Suit in O.S. No. 12 of 1984 on the file of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal, for partition of her 3/4th share. Preliminary decree was passed on 28.2.1988. The Plaintiff has filed I.A. No. 145 of 1985 for passing a final decree in terms of the Preliminary Decree. A compromise memo was filed and decree was passed pursuant to the compromise memo. As per the compromise memo, instead of 71/2 feet entitled by the Defendant, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant endorsed that the Defendant was entitled to 9 feet width in the total length, for which a sum of Rs. 5000/- was assured to be paid as compensation. Rs. 3000/- was stated to be paid then and thereby leaving a balance...
Allahabad Bank, Pondicherry Branch Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs. Mala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC567
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 7.11.2001, made in R.C.A. No. 2/2000 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Pondicherry (Principal District Court, Pondicherry), confirming the order dated 22.9.1998 in H.R.C.O.P. No. 32/1994, on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry.2. The tenant has filed the above revision petition.3. RCOP No. 32/1994 was filed by the landlady against the tenant which is a nationalised bank, under Section 5(1) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1969 hereinafter called 'the Act', to fix fair rent for the schedule property at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month. The rent controller by order dated 22.9.1998 fixed the fair rent at Rs.5,675/- per month payable from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the order of the rent controller, the tenant/bank filed RCA No. 2/2000 and the appellate authority by its order dated 7.11.2001 confirmed the order of the rent controller by fixin...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sree Ayyanar Spinning and Weaving Mills ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2006
Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Mad)355; [2008]296ITR53(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The Revenue has preferred the above tax case appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.1.2003 in M.P.No. 40(Mds)/2000 in ITA No. 719/Mds/1994 for the assessment year 1989-90 passed in exercise of power under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), raising the following substantial questions of law for consideration:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rectifying its order under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, based on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered six years after the date of the order rectified?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has the power or jurisdiction to rectify its order beyond, the time limit of four years specified under Section 254(2)?2.1. The facts, in brief, are, the assessment for the assessment year 1989-90 was completed on 27.2.1992 on a total income of Rs. 26,24,137/- based on book profit...
M.M. Financiers (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2006
Reported in: (2007)107TTJ(Chennai)200
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 25th Jan., 2002 for the above block assessment period. The assessee has taken the following grounds: 1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1.49 crores being the difference between undisclosed purchase consideration of Rs. 2.40 crores and disclosed consideration of Rs. 91 lakhs. 2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that consideration passed on to the assessee for sale of 22 acres of land is Rs. 3,62,18,000 as against the disclosed consideration of Rs. 1,15,52,148, thereby confirming the addition of short-term capital gain at Rs. 93,62,148 and interest income of Rs. 3,63,704 in addition to the income declared by the assessee at Rs. 24,52,148.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in real estate business. Shri Murali Mohan, a film actor, is the chairman of the company. On 20th Feb., 1999, there was a search action under Section 132 at the assessee's business premises...
Subbathal Vs. Arunachala Gounder (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ394
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The Plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal who has filed the suit in O.S. No. 217 of 1977 on the file of District Munsif Court, Thiruppur for injunction which was decreed. The appeal in A.S. No. 16 of 1981 filed by the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein before the Sub Court, Tiruppur was allowed on 20.03.1982, which was challenged by the appellant by filing the above said Second Appeal No. 1463 of 1982 and the same was disposed of, the matter was remanded back to the trial court for fresh disposal by Order dated 30.03.2001. In and by the said order dated 30.03.2001, the appellant was also permitted to include the relief of declaration. As against the same, respondents 5 and 6 herein have filed Civil Appeal No. 7620 of 2002 before the Honourable Supreme Court, which remitted back the matter to this Court by Order dated 22.11.2002 wherein it was held thus:For the aforegoing reasons, the impugned order of the High Court is partly modified. Instead...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »