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.
Commissioner of Income Tax-i Vs. Upasana Finance Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Mad)383; [2006]286ITR179(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, in I.T.A. No. 1141/Mds/97, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'B' Bench raising the following substantial question of law. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing 100% depreciation on printing cylinders, sintex sipper ice box, ms bins which does not serve any purpose individually? 2. The brief facts leading to the above question of law are as under: i) The assessee is engaged in the business of hire purchase, finance and leasing etc. The Return of the company's income was filed on 30.12.1993. During the course of the assessment under Section 43(3), the Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation which was claimed by the assessee at the rate of 100% on printing cylinders, MS bins and Shipper Sintex Ice Boxes under first proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act, by giving the reason that the assessee was a le...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Damodaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Mad)454
P.P.S. Janarthan Raja, J.1. The present appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, in I.T.A. Nos. 1809 and 1810/Mds/2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'B' Bench raising the following substantial question of law:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IA, when he himself had given a sworn statement to the Central excise authorities that he did not have any activity of manufacture in the said premises?2. The facts leading to the above question of law are as under:The assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80IA(2)(iv)(c) of the Income-tax Act for manufacturing cable joining kit used in the telecommunication industry at Pondicherry, which is an industrially backward area. The assessment order originally passed for the assessment year 1995-96, was set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with a clear direction t...
K. Duraikkannu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ598
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the G.O.Ms. No. 286 Public Works Department dated 21.5.1999 and to direct the respondent to promote him as Assistant Executive Engineer by including his name in the Panel of 1998-1999 and for consequential benefits.2. The facts of the case as set out in the affidavit are as follows:(i) Petitioner joined the Public Works Department as Assistant Engineer on 19.12.1977. The next avenue of promotion to him is to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. According to the petitioner, the turn for inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion came in the years 1995-1996, 1996-1997 and 1997-1998. But however, his name was not included in the panel on the ground that a charge under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules was pending against him. (ii) It is stated in the affidavit that the charge was framed on 17.10.1988 for certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Computer Graphics Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Mad)403; [2006]285ITR84(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, against the order passed in I.T.A. Nos.2829/Mds/92, 2223/Mds/93, 3069/Mds/92, 2117/Mds/93, 278/Mds/95, 2454/Mds/96, 2455/Mds/96, 867/Mds/98 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'C' Bench. On 23.08.2001, this Court admitted the appeals and formulated the following substantial questions of law:-1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 32AB as the item dealt with by the assessee did not fall under the prohibited entry 10 to XI Schedule Viz. Photographic apparatus and goods.2. Whether, the Tribunal was right in law that the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 80I as there was manufacturing process in making the graphic art film of colour paper in Jumbo rolls into marketable condition by the process of slitting.3. Whether the Tribunal had material and was correct in upholding the claim for high...
E. Veeralakshmi Vs. the Director of School Education,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ594
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records relating to the order in Na.Ka. No. 68604/J1/2001, dated 7.3.2003 passed by the first respondent, quash the same and further direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's name for compassionate appointment for the post of Junior Assistant.2. The brief facts as could be seen from the affidavit are as follows.(a) Petitioner is the youngest daughter of one V. Elumalai, who was working as Assistant Teacher in the Singavaram Primary School, Keelpennathur Union, Tiruvannamalai District. The said V. Elumalai died in harness on 21.12.1981, leaving behind his wife and five daughters and the petitioner is the fifth daughter. On the date of filing the original application before the Tribunal, the age of the petitioner was stated to be 23 years.(b) Petitioner made a representation before the third respondent for compassionate appointment in the prescribed form along with necessary certificates. The third ...
Bysani Consumer Electronics Ltd. Vs. Jainsons Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: [2006]134CompCas99(Mad); [2006]69SCL66(Mad)
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. These two company petitions are filed for grant of a scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act. The petitioner in C.P. No. 234 of 2005 is the first transferor company and the petitioner in C.P. No. 235 of 2005 is the second transferor company.2. It is seen from the petition filed that the transferee company has not filed any application under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act on the strength of the decision of this Court in C.P. No. 151 of 2005 wherein, it was held that when the transferor company is the subsidiary of the holding company, it being a transferee company, a separate application from the transferee-company to grant a Scheme of Amalgamation need not be filed at all.3. In a meeting held by the Board of Directors on 20-12-2005, the Board of Directors of the respective petitioner company passed a resolution on 20-10-2005 for adopting the Scheme of Amalgamation and resolved to submit it to this Court for the sanc...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Soundararaja Finance Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: [2006]283ITR559(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, in I. T. A. No. 1724/ Mds/97, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'B' Bench raising the following substantial question of law :Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the two electrical yarn cleaners by the asses-see is entitled for depreciation at the rate of 100 per cent. ?2. The facts leading to the above question of law are as under :(i) The assessee is a hire-purchase and lease finance company. The assessment year is 1992-93 and the corresponding accounting year ended on March 31, 1992. The assessee-company filed its return of income on December 31, 1992, declaring total income of Rs. 5,21,180. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on December 8, 1993. Later, the case was taken up for scrutiny on December 6, 1993. During the year, the asses-see-company purchased two electrical yarn c...
V.G. Paneerdas and Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Mad)469; [2006]284ITR444(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court at the instance of the assessee:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in sustaining the action of the first appellate authority in approving the levy of penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in sustaining the action of the first appellate authority in approving the levy of penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the action of the lower authorities in invoking Explanation 4 to Section 18(1)(c) of the Act?2. The facts relating to the above questions of law are as under:The assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. It was in possession of assets specified in Section 40(3) of the...
Rajam Engineering Contractors, Rep. by Its One of the Partner, Mr. K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ701
ORDERAjit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. These Original Petitions filed under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') raise a common question on the interpretation of a certain Governmental Order issued by the State of Tamil Nadu, the terms of which supposedly constitute an arbitration agreement. There is, however, apparent conflict between the decisions rendered by the single Judges of this Court on the interpretation of the said Government Order.2. We take the facts in O.P. No. 58 of 2003 to understand the issue involved in these petitions. The petitioner was awarded a contract for the work of formation of Innner Ring Road in Hosur including construction of minor bridges and culverts by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the work could not be completed due to the indifferent attitude of the respondents, and the petitioner is no way responsible for the delay. Further, the amount due to the petitioner was not paid by ...
T. Baby Ammal W/O. Thanigachala Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Vinola Ammal W/O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC166; 2006(2)CTC188; (2006)3MLJ589
C. Nagappan, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 13.12.1986, made in O.S. No. 568 of 1984 on the file of I Additional Sub- Judge, Pondicherry.The plaintiffs are the appellants.2. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs is that the respondent/defendant received cash consideration of Rs. 3,000/- on 27.9.1974, Rs. 2,000/- on 5.2.1975, Rs. 4,500/- on 7.7.1976, Rs. 8,000/- on 18.3.1977 and Rs. 6,200/- on 9.3.1979 and in all totalling a sum of Rs. 23,700/- from them and executed separate pronotes for the consideration on each date mentioned above agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% and the defendant did not pay any amount on the pronotes, pursuant to which, demand notice was issued through the counsel on 26.6.1984 and even after receiving the same, no payment was made and hence the suit is filed and the suit is not barred by limitation since under local French law, suit could be filed within 30 years.3. The respondent/defendant in her written statem...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »