Chennai Court February 2006 Judgments
Venus Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport and Customs, Ex ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(199)ELT405(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appeal is directed against the final order No. 1507/2005 dated 25.10.2005 passed in Appeal No. C/95/1999/MAS by the second respondent, raising the following questions of law:-(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the order of assessment on which no Appeal was preferred, can be reopened by issue of a fresh Show Cause Notice under Section 28A of the Customs Act, in the light of the Apex Court's decision reported in in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. CC ?(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the parallel invoices, which were dated prior to the date of Bill of Entry, can be the basis for enhancing the value, disregarding the factual position that no foreign exchange remittance has been made over and above the invoice value submitted to the Customs for assessment ?(3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has acted by an outright refusal to consider the binding...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ravindran Vs. M. Rajamanickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad203; I(2008)BC71; (2006)2MLJ379
ORDERC. Nagappan, J. 1. The petitioner has sought for setting aside the order dated 29.12.2003 made in O.S. No. 47 of 2002 on the file of Sub-Court, Tiruvarur. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit.2. The suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,38,000 with subsequent interest and costs from the respondent herein/defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed two loan amounts of Rs.2,00,000 each from the plaintiff and failed to repay the same and the suit claim is the balance outstanding in the transaction.3. During the trial of the case, the plaintiff sought for marking Plaint document Nos. 1 and 2 as exhibits on his side and that was objected to by the defendant on the ground that the documents are inadmissible in evidence. The Trial Court in the impugned order held that both the documents are promissory notes payable otherwise than on demand and as the documents were insufficiently stamped, they are inadmissible as per Section 35 of the Stamp A...
Tag this Judgment!P.M.S. Pakkir Mohideen Vs. K. Susila
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC172
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. Tenant is the revision petitioner. Aggrieved over the order of eviction passed on 07.12.2001 in R.C.A.No.246 of 1998 on the file of VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, which reversed the dismissal order dated 29.01.1998 of R.C.O.P.No.1825 of 1995 that was filed for eviction under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the file of XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, this revision petition has been filed.2. The tenament is measuring 7 feet x 19 feet in the ground floor of premises No.442, Mint Street, Chennai-79, which was let out for non-residential purpose to the revision petitioner / tenant.3. In one portion of the same building, the respondent/ landlady is having residence. She wanted the tenaments for owner's occupation inasmuch as she wanted to shift the goldsmith business of his sons Damodaran and Ganesan from the rented shop at No.67, Edapalayam Street, Madras. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax - I Vs. Sakthi Charities
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: [2006]284ITR401(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 8.4.2005 made in I.T.A. No. 4/Mds/98 for the assessment year 1985-86 raising the following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstancess of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that, the assessee trust was exempt under the provisions of Section 45(e) of the Gift-tax Act, even though the Civil Court has no power to make amendments or alter the objects of the Trust Deed under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code?2.1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The original gift tax assessment made on the assessee for the assessment year 1985-86 exempting the gift of Rs. 89,615/- made by the assessee trust under Section 45(e) of the Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was set aside by the Commissioner of Gift Tax under Section 24(2) of the Act by an order dated 6.2.1992 with a direction to compute the taxab...
Tag this Judgment!Areva T and D India Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)325; [2006]287ITR555(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order of the Tribunal, Bench-A, Chennai dt. 24th May, 2005 made in ITA No. 1555/Mad/2000 raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal on the point of limitation without appreciating the reasons stated in the affidavit filed by the appellant ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in insisting for an affidavit from the counsel when there was an affidavit from the director of the company stating the reasons for the delay ?2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1997-98. The assessee is the appellant which is a limited company. In view of the short point involved in this appeal, we need not go into the facts in detail.3. Against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 11th Nov., 1999, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 231 days....
Tag this Judgment!Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)103TTJ(Chennai)122
1. The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XI, Chennai. The relevant assessment year involved in this appeal is 1999-2000.2. The only issue in the assessee's appeal is against the confirmation of charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that he is not pressing the issue of charging of interest under Section 234B of the Act. Accordingly, charging of interest under Section 234B of the Act is dismissed as not pressed.3. Now, the issue remained for adjudication is charging of interest under Section 234C of the Act. The briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee received a communication regarding adjustment of income-tax refund amounting to Rs. 1,05,95,908 on 26th March, 1999. The assessee has declared this interest in the return of income for the relevant assessment year, i.e., 1999-2000, as income. The AO processed the return under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Breeze Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)103TTJ(Chennai)129
1. These appeals of the assessee are directed against the common order of CIT(A), Chennai, dt. 5th Sept., 2005- The relevant assessment years, involved in these appeals are 1997-98 and 1998-99.2. The first issue in these appeals is that of reopening of assessment barred by limitation, the assessee has not pressed this issue at the time of hearing. Accordingly this issue is dismissed as not pressed.3. The second issue in the assessee's appeal is as regards to confirming the levy of expenditure-tax, although the provisions of Expenditure-tax Act are inapplicable in the instant case and expenditure-tax is a tax imposed on chargeable expenditure incurred in a hotel, wherein the room charges, where, any unit of residential accommodation at the time of incurring of such expenditure are Rs. 1,200 or more per day per person.4. We have heard both the sides and perused the case records including the assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A). We have also perused the provisions of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Leyland Finance Limited Represented by Its Duly Constituted Atto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CTC33
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Contempt Petition filed is under Sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act praying to punish the second and third respondents for committing contempt of the order dated 10.12.1999 passed by this Court in Application No. 4103 of 1999.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:The petitioner, a non-banking financial institution, during the course of business, extended financial assistance to the first respondent Company for a sum of Rs. 6,40,00,000/- for purchase of a composite industrial equipment known as 'Steel Wire Rod Mills' under a hire purchase agreement dated 6.8.1997 and the said amount shall be repaid in 60 equal installments. As the respondent is not regular in repayment, the petitioner invoked Arbitration Clause in the hire purchase agreement by appointing an arbitrator to resolve the dispute. During the pendency of arbitration proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act fo...
Tag this Judgment!V. Chandrasekaran Vs. R. Nagarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC699; 2006CriLJ2055
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. This revision is preferred against an order passed by the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in Crl. M. P. No. 5841 of 2005 in C.A. No. 232 of 2005 suspending the operation of judgment of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Channai rendered in C.C. No. 2309 of 2002,2. The petitioner has been convicted by the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in C.C. No. 2309 of 2002 to undergo sentence of simple imprisonment for one year. The petitioner herein, aggrieved against the said judgment preferred criminal appeal in C.A. No. 232 of 2005 on the file of the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. A petition in Crl. M. P. No. 5841 of 2005 was filed before the said Court, seeking suspension of the operation of the judgment itself passed in C.C. No. 2309 of 2002 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.3. Learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, having adve...
Tag this Judgment!S. Arulselvan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ211
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner is a B.E.(Mech. Engg.) Degree holder with 57.75% marks. He is also a M.E.(Prod.) Degree holder with 63.66% marks. He has approached this Court questioning Clause 5 of the prospectus issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board for direct recruitment of Lecturers in the Government Engineering Colleges/Polytechnics (2005-06), as the said clause excludes the First Class Master's Degree in the branch of engineering as an alternative qualification.2. I heard Mr. K.M. Ramesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.3. The Government of Tamil Nadu decided to recruit Lecturers and Senior Lecturers for appointment in Government Engineering Colleges/ Polytechnics (2005-06) by direct recruitment through the Teachers' Recruitment Board, Chennai. In the prospectus, among other eligibility norms, the minimum educational qualification is also prescribed. Clause 5 of the prospectu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »