Chennai Court February 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 Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Mad)560; [2006]284ITR93(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income Tax Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law to this Court for its opinion:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in holding the Government Securities held by the applicant as investments/capital asset and not circulating capital/stock-in-trade?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Co-op Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT and Mahdya Pradesh Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit v. CIT : [1996]218ITR438(SC) and the various decisions referred to in its order for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 would be applicable to the applicant's case?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in not following the orders of the Tribunal in the applicant's own case for the earlier years under exactl...
P. Maragathamani Vs. General Manager (in-charge), Bharat Heavy Electri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC497; [2007(1)JCR283(Mad)]; (2006)1MLJ480
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Whether the suit in Civil Court for declaration that a person belongs to a particular community and for mandatory injunction, directing the authorities to issue community certificate in pursuance of the said declaration and it is binding on the said authorities, is maintainable or not ?The above is the question, posed before this Full Bench.2. The facts leading to the reference of the point in issue to this Full Bench for determination, in short, are as follows:(i) Writ petitioners, claiming themselves to be belonging to Kattunaicken community, which is a Scheduled Tribe, on the basis of the community certificates obtained from the Tahsildar, applied for jobs in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy, and got the same. A few years later, the management, after receipt of some information, decided to verify the genuineness of the certificates and sent the said community certificates for verification to the District Collector.(ii) The District Collector ve...
B. Rajamanickam S/O. M. Balakrishnan Vs. R. Rathinambal W/O. T.S. Subr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC17; 2006(1)CTC437; (2006)1MLJ571
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioner has sought for setting aside the order dated 6.12.20 04 made in Memo dated 13.7.2004 in O.S. No. 192 of 2001 on the file of District Munsif, Tiruchengode. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit.2. The respondent filed the suit against the petitioner herein seeking for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,120/- with interest and costs. During the trial, before marking the Plaint document No. 1, the petitioner herein/defendant filed a memo stating that it cannot be marked as exhibit as per Article 13 of the Indian Stamp Act and also under Section 35 of the Act even on payment of stamp duty penalty and the Trial Court, after hearing both sides, held that Plaint document No. 1 is only a receipt and not a promissory note and rejected the memo. Challenging the same, the defendant has preferred the present revision.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under the terms of Plaint document No. 1, repayment could be demanded only after ...
Coromandal Steel Products Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: [2006]148STC380(Mad)
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. Challenge is to the order dated July 28, 2000 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai, in S.T.A. No. 105 of 1999.2. Facts in brief are-the petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business in iron and steel and assessed to the sales tax and commercial tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short, 'the TNGST Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, 'the CST Act'), respectively. For the assessment year 1989-90, the petitioner reported a total turnover of Rs. 5,60,573 and nil taxable turnover and claimed exemption under Section 6-A of the CST Act on the ground that they have effected consignment transfer of goods to their agents outside the State.3. The assessing authority, first respondent herein, after verification of the books of account and returns filed by the petitioner, passed an assessment order dated July 13, 1990, accepting the claim of the petitioner and gra...
Om Sakthi Renergies Limited, Rep. by Its Managing Director Mr. M. Jaya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR186(Madras); 2006(2)CTC161; (2006)1MLJ657
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') making absolute the prohibitory order restraining the Garnishee, the second respondent in this appeal, from making any payment to the appellant.2. The appeal arises under the following circumstances: -The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at Hyderabad. In or around January, 2003 the appellant had called for tenders for the works of Erection, Testing and Commissioning and Power Evacuation and distribution system for the Biomass Best Power Plant of 6 MW capacity. The tender submitted by the first respondent was accepted, and seven purchase orders were issued by the appellant to the first respondent with annexures specifying the works and prices. As per Clause -11 of the agreement any difference in the interpretation of the terms of t...
Rathinambal Vs. P. Rajasekaran,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC177
ORDERAR. Ramalingam, J.1. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal passed in I.A. No. 1726 of 2004 in O.S. No. 158 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangayam by the said District Munsif on 28.2.2005, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed this revision. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this civil revision petition are to the effect that the said suit was filed for declaration of title in respect of plaint A schedule properties and for partition of plaint B schedule properties wholly based upon a registered Will said to have been executed by the mother of the plaintiff and defendants viz. Valliathal on 13.11.1995 and that while PW1 was examined in part, the plaintiff wanted to prove the Will by examining the attestors after issuing notice to the defendants to produce the original Will into Court and she filed the present I.A. for permission of the District Munsif to mark the xerox copy of the said Will for the purpose of proving the signature of the Testatrix as well as a...
R. Mohan Vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Adminis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ590
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the second respondent in Na.Ka. No. 85069/97/A3, dated 15.9.1998 in this writ petition.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was originally appointed as Night Watchman-cum-Masalchi on 26.3.1973 and later as Office Assistant from 10.9.1973. His services as Office Assistant was regularised by order dated 30.6.1975 with effect from 12.9.1973. Petitioner's probation was declared in the cadre of Office Assistant in the year 1976 and he was then promoted as Record Clerk by order dated 14.11.1985. He joined in the promoted post on 2.12.1985 and is continuing in the same post. Whileso, by the impugned order dated 15.9.1998, the petitioner was reverted back to the post of Night Watchman-cum-Masalchi on the ground that his name was not sponsored through the Employment Exchange at the time of appointment as Office Assistant. The said order of reversion passed by the second respondent is challenged in this writ ...
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ897Mad
1. Three Pensioners' Associations and some individual pensioners' prayed for implementation of G.O. Ms. Nos. 272 and 273, Finance (Pension) Department dated 15.6.1998 to the pensioners of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Writ Petitions were filed for issuing a mandamus directing the Electricity Board to give effect to the said G.Os. by passing necessary proceedings and by settling the arrears of the pensionary benefits.2. On behalf of the writ petitioners, reliance was placed on Regulation 9 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Liberalised Pension Regulations, 1960 and the Settlement arrived at between the Electricity Board and its workmen, according to which it was agreed that the revised Pension Scheme of the Government of Tamil Nadu and any amendments made thereon from time to time would be applied to the pensioners of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The pensioners were originally employed in the Electricity Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. On the formation of the Tamil...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. India Pistons Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)328
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the common order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1042 and 1044/Mad/1998, dt. 16th June, 2004.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessee is a manufacturer of pistons for heavy commercial vehicles. During the relevant assessment years, the assessee's claim with regard to the excise duty and customs duty should not be added in the closing stock for computing the income was disallowed by the AO. Further, the AO disallowed the interest on foreign bills. Hence, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A), who allowed the appeals. On appeals, at the instance of Revenue, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals by following the decision of this Court in CIT v. Addison Paints & Chemicals Ltd.3. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has preferred the above appeals raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that, excise duty an...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salem Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: [2006]284ITR621(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. 562 of 2002 dated August 18, 2005.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the business of spinning mill. They have filed their return for the assessment year 1994-95. Their claim with regard to the expenditure towards remodelling of the generator as revenue in nature, was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, who was of the opinion that replacement of old by new machinery cannot be treated as revenue expenditure and allowed depreciation. The expenditure was treated as capital expenditure. Further the Assessing Officer disallowed the contribution made by the assessee towards ESI on April 21, 1994, on the ground that the same was not made within the previous year and the stipulated time. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeal, ho...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »