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 Income-tax Vs. D. Laxmanakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2006
Reported in: [2008]296ITR70(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA.Nos.433 and 434/Mds/2003, dated 25.11.2005.2.1. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment years involved are 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The assessee, who is a medical practitioner, constructed a nursing home during the period February 1996 to October 1998. On a survey conducted by the Income-tax department on 3.11.1998, it was found that the cost of construction as shown by the assessee at Rs. 19,40,500/- has been underestimated and the assessing officer, based on the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer, estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 37,31,906/- and accordingly, called upon the assessee to explain as to why the difference amount of Rs. 17.92 lakhs should not be treated as unexplained investment. After a detailed enquiry, the assessing officer completed the assessment and brought to tax a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs by treating it as unexplained i...
Artson Engineering Limited Vs. Mr. Deendayal Ashok Kumar Goidani, Prop ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2006
Reported in: [2008]145CompCas713(Mad); (2007)1MLJ661
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. Admit. Learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent, the writ appeal is taken up for hearing.2. This appeal is directed against the common order dated 17.02.2006 passed by the learned single Judge in A. Nos. 1967, 1968, 2569 and 2570 of 2005 in C.S. No. 231 of 2005.3. C.S. No. 231 of 2005 is filed by the first respondent/plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14 lakhs and odd, which would represent the value of the goods, which were supplied by the plaintiff pursuant to an agreement between the parties. Along with the suit, two applications were filed in A. Nos. 1967 and 1968 of 2005. The learned single Judge passed an order, directing the appellant/defendant to furnish security to the extent of the suit claim and also an order prohibiting the garnishee from making payments to the appellant/defendant. On receiving notice, the appellant/defendant filed A. Nos. 2569 and 2570 of 2005 to raise the said orders contending inter alia that it is a sick indus...
Management of Akkur Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2006
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ959Mad
K. Chandru, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated June 28, 2006 made in W.P. No. 17285 of 2001.2. The appellant is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society functioning in Akkur Panchayat in Nagapattinam District. The first respondent was working as a Secretary of the said Society and he was charge sheeted by an order dated October 24, 1996 which finally resulted in his dismissal vide order dated September 1, 1997. As against the said order of dismissal, the first respondent filed an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act (for short. 'Shops Act'). The said appeal was taken on file by the appellate authority (Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirappalli) as T.N.S.E. No. 5 of 1997 and notice was ordered to the appellant Society. Before the appellate authority (second respondent herein), the appellant Society resisted the appeal on several grounds including the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The appell...
J. Jayalalitha, Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2006
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Mad)305
ORDER1. The petitioners' applications for discharge filed under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were dismissed. They have filed these revisions.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner in Crl. R.C. Nos.781, 783 and 785 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the first petitioner') was required to file return of income for the Assessment Year 1993-94 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by 31st August, 1993. The first petitioner failed to furnish the return of income. A notice was sent to the first petitioner under Section 142(1) on 18.1.1994, calling upon her to file the return of income within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the notice. This notice was served on the first petitioner on 19.1.1994. The period of 30 days expired, but no return was filed in compliance to the notice. Reminders were sent on 22.8.1994, 10.2.1995 and 23.8.1995, yet the return was not filed. Subsequently...
Selvi J. Jayalalitha, Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Its Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR225(Mad)
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The writ petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of Section 278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The petitioners are facing prosecution before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II), Egmore, Chennai-8 for the offence under Section 276CC of the Act. The case of the petitioners is that, the expression 'wilfully' occurring in Section 278E of the Act indicates the mens rea element. This is the basis for the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution is bound to prove the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. However, by introduction of Section 278E, which gives rise to a presumption as to the culpable mental state of the accused, the entire basis of accusatorial jurisprudence, as accepted and recognised in India, has been shifted. The petitioners contend that while having to defend a wholly baseless and vexatious criminal proceedings, they are also expected to discharge t...
Ravi Paints and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2006
Reported in: 2007(116)ECC512; 2007LC512(Madras); 2007[5]STR182; [2007]8STT495
P.D. Dinakrana, J.1. The above appeal is directed against the Final order No.576/2004 dated 21.5.2004 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Southern Zonal Bench, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT'), made in Appeal E/859/01/MAS. Even though the appellant has raised various substantial questions of law, the following question of law would be relevant for the disposal of the above appeal:Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified drawing inference on questions relating to fact and act as an original authority without giving a proper opportunity to the appellant to explain the same?2.1. The detailed facts that are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are:The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paints and varnishes. They initially made four claims to the tune of Rs. 4,41,561/- for the period from 1990-91 to 1993-94 as per the following details:Year Refund Amount(Rs.) Date of filing1990-91 39,888/- 20.01.971991-92 77,831/- 20.01.971992-93 1,52...
M.N. Ramunni Vs. the District Registrar and the Joint Sub Registrar Ii
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC204
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. The writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents not to insist on the petitioner paying the Stamp Duty, if any, over and above the terms of the decree made in O.S. No. 680 of 1996, dated 2.3.2001, on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, and in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, reported in 1997 Writ Law Reporter at page 396, and for other orders.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as for the respondents. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:3. The petitioner had filed a suit in O.S. No. 680 of 1996, on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, on 18.1.1996, praying for a decree for specific performance. The petitioner and the Vendor are close relatives and as such, they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the Flat, which was the subject matter in O.S. No....
Revenue Secretary Vs. Syed Liaquath Peeran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2006
Reported in: 2007[5]STR331
Dharma Rao Elipe, J.1. The Secretary (Revenue), Government of India has filed this Writ Petition praying for the issuance of writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 763 of 2002 and quash the order, dated 18-7-2003 made therein.2. The brief facts which necessary for disposal of the Writ Petition, are as follows:The first respondent who was a practising advocate, selected and appointed as Member (Judicial) at Delhi Benches with effect from 24-4-1989. At the relevant time, the first respondent was working as Member (Judicial) of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Chennai. According to the first respondent, Mr. Justice K. Sreedharan had occasion to visit to Chennai, and during the said visit, there was some misunderstanding in the arrangements made for the visiting President, that the first respondent had reservations in regard to arrangements, it appears to have caused some ill-feelings which were carried by the President. On the even of ...
In Re: Knit Process P. Ltd.; in Re: Clothings P. Ltd.; in Re: Rbr Garm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2006
Reported in: [2007]138CompCas176(Mad); [2008]82SCL147(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. These company petitions are preferred under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation of the transferor companies with the transferee company with effect from March 31, 2006.2. RBR Knit Process P. Ltd., the petitioner in C. P. No. 171 of 2006, is the transferor company 1. The main objects of the transferor company 1 as stated in the memorandum of association is narrated in paragraph 3 of the petition and the memorandum of association is marked as annexure A.3. RBR Clothings P. Ltd., the petitioner in C. P. No. 172 of 2006 is the transferor company 2. The main objects of the transferor company 2 as stated in the memorandum of association is narrated in paragraph 3 of the petition and the memorandum of association is marked as annexure A.4. RBR Garments P. Ltd., the petitioner in C. P. No. 173 of 2006, is the transferee company. The main objects of the transferee company as stated in the memorandum of association...
Bilahari Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2006
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Mad)242
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. These appeals arise out of the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 26.5.2006 made in I.T.A. Nos. 993 to 995, 1242 to 1244, 990 to 992 and 1247 to 1249/(Mds)/2002 for the assessment years 1996-97 to 1998-99 respectively.2. The brief facts, which are common so far as the assesses are concerned, giving rise to the above appeals, are as under:2.1. The assessees are private limited companies subscribing to chits as their business activity. The assessees were maintaining its accounts on mercantile basis and computing loss or profit, as the case may be, at the end of the chit period in respect of chits terminating in a particular previous year, following completed contract method.2.2. Before the assessing officer, the assessees claimed that the discount arose at a particular point of time when the prized chit amount was received and the discount was a statutory and contractual liability incurred by the subscriber as a consideration for obtaining the su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »