Chennai Court February 2006 Judgments
M. Sundaram Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Mad)647; [2006]287ITR145(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessee against the order passed in I.T.A. Nos. 1579 & 1580(Mds)/96 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'D' Bench raising the following substantial questions of law. 1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in confirming the addition made in the respective assessment years invoking Section 69A of the Act in the re-opened assessments?2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that the Appellant had not discharged his burden in order to establish on the fact of the ownership of the monies deposited in his bank accounts in spite of the sworn statements recorded on oath from the Appellant and other cogent reasons placed on record in support of his stand?2. The facts leading to the above questions of law are as under: The relevant assessment years are 1991-92 and 1992-93. The assessee filed Return of income declaring salary from M/s.United Bleachers Limited, Mettupalay...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. K. Umadevi Vs. V. Manikandan, Proprietor, Manisha Traders
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2006
Reported in: III(2006)BC378; [2006]130CompCas311(Mad); 2006(1)CTC662
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The petitioner, who has been arraigned as third accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'), moves these criminal original petitions seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings culminated in C.C. Nos. 2209 to 2216 of 2005 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T., Chennai, on the sole ground that she ceased to be the Director of the first accused company long prior to the issuance of the cheques which are the subject matter of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act.2. The complainant, V.Manikandan, Proprietor, Manisha Traders, having alleged that the cheques issued by the first accused company for the existing liability were returned by the drawee bank with an endorsement 'payment stopped by drawer' when the said cheques were presented for payment. After giving due notice and having waited for the payment to be made by the first accused company, the respondent/complainant has laid...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C. Palaniappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2006
Reported in: [2006]284ITR257(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 18.8.2004 made in ITA. Nos. 909, 908, 907 and 910/Mds/2003, raising the following substantial questions of law:1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of the assessment under section 147, and completion of assessment without issue of notice under section 143(2) within 12 months is not valid?2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that, non-furnishing of the copies of the reasons by the assessing officer for reopening the case under section 147, even though the assessee has not applied for certified copies of the reasons recorded by the assessing officer and paying the necessary charges is valid...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC638
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. These writ petitions are filed by the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department and another against the common order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras, in O.A. No. 2954 of 1991, 2292 to 2295, 2484 and 2485 of 1995 dated 7th June 2 001. W.P. No. 1234 of 2003 is against O.A. No. 2485 of 1995, W.P. No. 454 73 of 2002 is against O.A. No. 2292 of 1995, W.P. No. 1305 of 2003 is against O.A. No. 2295 of 1995, W.P. No. 1241 of 2003 is against O.A. No. 2293 of 1995, W.P. No. 1296 of 2003 is against O.A. No. 2484 of 1995 and W.P. No. 1891 of 2003 is against O.A. No. 2294 of 1995.2. The contentions in all the writ petitions are one and the same. For the purpose of convenience, we shall refer to the facts in W.P. No. 1234 of 2003.3. The applicant before the Tribunal was working as a Draughtsman Grade-III in the Town and Country Planning Department, which is covered by the Sub Rules dated 25.10.1985 in G.O.Ms. No. 1111 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Harris Vs. the District Elementary Educational Officer and the Assi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ652
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings of the first and second respondents dated 30.9.1999 and 2.3.1999 respectively and for consequential direction to the respondents to disburse salary for the period of his re-employment from 1.1.1999 to 31.5.1999 with all allowances and other attendant benefits together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows.(a) Petitioner joined in service as Assistant Teacher in the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Velleri on 2.7.1962 and subsequently his services were regularised by the Commissioner, Gudalur Panchayat Union by proceedings dated 14.2.1963 with effect from 2.7.1962, the date of his initial appointment. Subsequently he was posted as Elementary School Head Master and after 37 years of service, he attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.1998.(b) According to the petitioner as he was in teaching professi...
Tag this Judgment!A. Jayaraj Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and the Sanita ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC720
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. Criminal Original Petitions are to call for the records in S.M.S.T.C. No. 148, 160, 180 of 2001 on the file of XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ripon Buildings, Chennai 600 003 and to quash the same.2. Heard both sides.3. The petitioner who is one of the partners of the firm called Jaya Soap Works has been booked for an offence under Section 287 of the City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. The allegation found in the complaint is that the firm Jaya Soap Works failed to keep separate space for storing chemicals.4. The further allegation is that when licence was granted to Jaya Soap Works for using 15 HP Motor, the said firm was found using 22 HP motor. That is the sum and substance of the allegation found in the aforesaid three cases.5. The petitioner who is the accused in the aforesaid cases, challenges the criminal prosecution on three grounds.Firstly, it is submitted that Jaya Soap Works, which is a registered firm in whose name the licence stands was not prosecuted...
Tag this Judgment!A. Subramanyam and ors. Vs. Shabbir Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2349
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. Criminal Original Petitions are to call for the records in C. C. Nos. 6156, 6157, 6159, 6160, 6158 of 2004 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. VII, George Town, Chennai and to quash the same.2. The petitioners who are accused in C. C. Nos. 6156, 6157, 6159, 6160, 6158 of 2004 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. VII, George Town, Chennai, moved these Criminal Original Petitions, seeking quashment of those Calender Cases; pending on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.3. The petitioners are the accused in five cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.4. The ground on which the criminal proceedings are sought to be quashed are:(a) The complainant has not chosen to state specifically that the petitioners were responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the time of commission of the offences.(b) The statutory notices issued by the complainant were admittedly not received...
Tag this Judgment!A. Panneerselvam Vs. Sowmini,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC22; (2006)1MLJ592
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. This O.S. Appeal arises against the order of the learned single Judge in Application No. 777 of 2004 in C.S. No. 124 of 1995 dated 8.4.2004. Application No. 777 of 2004 was filed seeking reopening of the main suit C.S. No. 124 of 1995, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 31.10.2003.2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this O.S. Appeal are as follows,On 31.10.2003, the learned counsel on record for the appellant/ plaintiff sought permission to withdraw the suit stating that the matter was settled out of Court. A memo was filed to the effect that the matter has been settled out of Court and hence the petitioner does not want to proceed further with the matter. Based on the said memo, the suit was dismissed on 31.10.2003. Application No. 777 of 2004 was filed by the plaintiff/appellant on 16.2.2004 and prior to that Application No. 5213 of 2003 was filed on 1.12.2003 for impleading the advocate on record of the plaintiff as party respondent No....
Tag this Judgment!Madras Fertilisers Ltd. Rep. by Its Executive Director, (Personnel and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)3LLJ123Mad; (2006)2MLJ205
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the relief of writ of certiorari to quash the award of the 1st respondent dated November 25, 1998 passed in I.D. No. 317 of 1995.2. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent joined the petitioner-company on February 15, 1992 as Technical Assistant. The 2nd respondent continuously absented himself for duty from November 27, 1993 till December 31, 1993. Because of this unauthorised absence for a long time, the petitioner-management decided to take action as per Clauses 23.1(15), 23.1(44) and 22.3 of the Standing Orders. The said clauses of the Standing Order read thus:22. Termination of Employment:22.3. Leave of absence by a workman on ground of sickness for an aggregate period of one hundred and twenty days or more in any calendar year shall render the workman liable to be classified as unfit for service in the company and consequently be discharged from service.23. Misconduct:23.1. Without prejudice to the gen...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri M. Kathiresan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Mad)166; [2006]285ITR206(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our consideration:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that in the case of conversion of proprietary business into partnership firm, the stock should not be valued at market price?2. The assessment year involved is 1983-84. The issue raised in this tax case reference is regarding the method of valuation to be adopted. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1983-84 the assessee claimed loss incurred in the sole proprietary concern, since the proprietary concern was converted into a partnership firm. The Income-tax Officer, completed the assessment accepting the loss returned by the assessee in the sole proprietary concern. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) set a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »