Chennai Court February 2006 Judgments
Rajarajan Electrical Equipments P. Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)299; [2006]284ITR448(Mad); (2006)2MLJ240
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. As against the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 8.11.2002 in ITA. No. 698/Mds/2002 imposing penalty of Rs. 6,67,045/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the unsuccessful assessee has preferred the above appeal raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was guilty of deliberate misstatement of facts and concealment of facts, thereby attracting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act in the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case?2. Whether the learned Tribunal had erred in not holding that the provisions of Section 273(A) of the Income-tax Act, were attracted in the instant case and thereby exempted the appellant from paying the impugned penalty assessment?2. The brief facts of the case are stated as follows:- 2.1. The assessment year involved is 1998-99. The assessee company filed the return for the assessment year 1998-99 admitting a tot...
Tag this Judgment!A. Jeyasankar Vs. Reena Borewell and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC205
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal the Order of the Commissioner awarding has been preferred by the claimant against compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The appellant herein was working as a coolie under the respondent No. 1 herein running a borewell company and the appellant's duty was loading the borewell pipes and other things relating to the borewell machine and unloading the same and instal the machine in the borewell place. On 19.10.1995, at 10p.m. after finishing the borewell work, they were returning to Dindigul. The lorry was coming near Chokkalingapuram in Melur Taluk, Madurai District. The petitioner travelling fell down from the lorry and sustained compound fracture on the left leg below knee and pelvis bone and head injuries. The multiple injuries suffered by him were while he was in the course of and in connection with the employment.2. A claim petition was filed before the authorities below claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,70,264. The claimant...
Tag this Judgment!State Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Health and Fami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ465
ORDER: In the G.O. first read above, the Government ordered that persons with scientific and technical (including medical) qualifications might be normally retained in service upto the age of 58 years if they are physically and otherwise fit for the public service to meet the situation created by the declaration of the National Emergency in 1962 as there was demand for large number of technical personnel. In the G.O. second cited the Department of Secretariat were requested to draw up a list of posts, in consultation with the Heads of Departments if necessary the holders of which would come within the scope of the orders G.O. Ms. No. 290, Public (Services), dated 19.02.1963. As the National Emergency has been lifted and as the demand for technical personnel has eased the Government have reconsidered the orders mentioned above and they issue the following orders:- 1) The orders issued in the two G. Os. read above be hereby cancelled.2) Cases of re-employment of Government servants of al...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sunshine Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)334; [2006]284ITR393(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 11.11.1998 made in ITA No. 2626/Mds/1991, raising the following substantial question of law.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are as under.2.1. The assessee firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting granites. It has filed its return on 30.11.1989 admitting an income of Rs. 5,01,790/-. The assessee claimed relief under Section 80HHC for the A.Y.1989-90 claiming that the activity of excavating granite blocks, cutting and polishing them with the help of machines, amounts to manufacture or production of an article or thing. The assessing officer turned down the claim of the assessee. Hence, the assessee went on appeal before th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. First Leasing Company of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Mad)115; [2007]292ITR110(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Mr. V.S. Jayakumar, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondent.The above tax case appeals are directed against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30.08.2005 and 19.07.2004 made in ITA No. 1168/Mds/97 and ITA No. 351/Mds/98 for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95.2. The brief facts are as follows:The Revenue is the appellant. The relevant assessment years are 1993-94 and 1994-95. For the said assessment years, the assessee claimed deduction of amount paid towards provision for premium payable on redemption of debentures in future years. The assessing officer disallowed the same and also disallowed the amount claimed on the debenture issue expenses. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of the assessing officer relying on the earlier orders in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1988-89. On further appeal...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nazir Basheer and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Mad)375; [2006]285ITR558(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29.4.1999 made in ITA No. 1 2971/Mds/1992, raising the following substantial question of law.(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,57,133/- being the amounts collected towards sales tax liability and described as 'contingency deposit' from the business income of the assessee?2.1. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are as under.The assessee is running a tannery and is mainly doing job work, like getting raw skins from its customers and processing them in its tannery on behalf of the customers. During the assessment year, the assessee had collected a sum of Rs. 1,57,133/- as contingency deposits from parties towards possible sales tax liability. The assessing officer added the contingency deposit collected by treating the same as income and not allowing as ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandran A. and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Cement Corp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: (2007)ILLJ918Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioners seek to challenge the notice issued by the second respondent in proceedings No. Aasi Aa/PaE-1/2006, dated February 9, 2006. By the impugned notice, the second respondent has announced the holding of election amongst different unions functioning in its factory for the purpose of recognising one of the said unions for negotiating the issues relating to the workmen. A reading of the impugned notice reveal that as per the 12(3) settlement, dated October 28, 2005, entered, into between the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and various unions, it was agreed to hold the election amongst the unions for electing the union supported by the workmen for the purpose of negotiating the issues relating to the workmen. As far as the recognition of a union is concerned, it is, by now, well settled that it is not recognised by any statute, though the petitioner in his capacity as General Secretary of a trade union may be entitled to raise an industrial dispute under th...
Tag this Judgment!Sujatha Films P. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Mad)553; [2006]284ITR503(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'A' Bench, referred the matter under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act at the instance of the assessee, for opinion of this Court, raising the following questions of law:1. For the assessment years 1986-87 to 1989-90:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in coming to the conclusion that interest at 15% was accruing on the amount of Rs.1,08,50,000/- due to the assessee by one Sri K.L. Srihari, despite the attachment of the loan under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and despite the agreement between the assessee and the debtor that no interest shall be chargeable or payable on the loan from 1.3.85 and that the same was assessable as the assessee's income according to the system of mercantile accounts followed by it?2. For the assessment year 1988-89 only:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that t...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Sankar and ors. Vs. S.P. Subramani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad268
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. This application is made by the plaintiffs seeking appointment of an Advocate Receiver to take charge of the property described in the Schedule to the plaint, collect the rents and deposit the same into Court to the credit of C.S. No. 562 of 2004 filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants along with a direction to the first defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 23,40,000/- being the arrears of damages for illegal use and occupation together with interest thereon.2. Affidavit in support of the application and the counter-affidavit are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs and also for the respondents/defendants .3. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property originally belonged to one Raju Mudaliar, who died issueless on 8-7-1956 leaving behind his two brothers Duraisamy Mudaliar and Ratnam Mudaliar, and his widow Kuppuratnammal, and his mother. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri V.G. Ramachandiron Vs. Income-tax Officer [Alongwith
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)284ITR53(Chennai)
1. These appeals of the assessee are directed against the different orders of CIT (Appeals), Tiruchy, both dated 30.3.2005. The relevant assessment year involved in these appeals is 2001-02.2. The only issue in these appeals of the assessee, is whether the sum paid on voluntary retirement scheme, (hereinafter called as VRS) subject to a limit of Rs. 5,00,000/- are exempt from being charged to tax under Section 10(10C) of the I.T. Act, 1961, even, if the payment is made in instalments and the same are paid in subsequent years? 3. The briefly stated facts in these cases are that the assessee's received a sum more than Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of voluntary retirement compensation including the arrears which they got in two instalments, first in the year of retirement and second in the following year. The assessee retired from BHEL, Trichy and opted for voluntary retirement in August 1999 under the BHEL VRS. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act for Rs. 5,00,000/- i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »