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 Vs. Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: [2007]290ITR663(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated March 24, 2003, in I.T.A. No. 2772/Mds/94.2. The relevant facts may be noticed in brief: The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved is 1991-92. The assessee filed return of income admitting an income of Rs. 1.58 lakhs. The Assessing Officer (i) added the excise duty on the raw materials, as also the excise duty payable on the finished goods in respect of the closing stock ; (ii) disallowed the speculative loss that arose on account of sale of units within one month of purchase ; and (iii) disallowed the dividend received from the units till the date of sale on the ground that it was a speculative income and had set off the speculative loss against the same.3. On appeal at the instance of the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal on the above issues. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal confirmed the order of th...
S. Rajeswari Vs. the Superintendent of Police, Railways
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC446
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The petitioner prays to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of dismissal passed by the respondent in P.R. No. 18/2000, dated 7.8.2001 and quash the same.2. In the brief facts stated in the affidavit, it is stated that a transfer order was passed against the petitioner on 21.8.2000 transferring the petitioner from Egmore Railway Police Station to Coimbatore Railway Police Station. The petitioner made several representations to retain her in Chennai Station as she was having 11 months old child. However, the same was not considered and she has challenged the order of transfer in O.A. No. 7740 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal and obtained an interim stay of the order on 20.8.2000. The said stay order was in operation till 4.6.2002 and the main O.A. was disposed of by the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal on 4.6.2002. The operative portion of the order disposing the above O.A. along with the connected O.A....
The Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Late C.V. Ct. thevanai Achi, by Shri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Mad)566; [2006]285ITR31(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question of law under the direction of this Court in T.C.P. No.372 of 1983 dated 07.03.1989, at the instance of the Revenue for opinion of this Court. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding and had valid materials to hold that the gift of jewellery on 19.8.1974 made by late C.V.C.T. Thevani Achi was made in contemplation of death and hence exempt under Section 5(1)(xi) of the Gift Tax Act?2. The facts leading to the above question of law are as under: i) In this case, though there are two gifts, one a cash gift of Rs.4,500/- made on 10.06.1974 and the other gift of jewellery made on 19.08.1974, the exemption is claimed only in respect of the jewellery gift. Late C.V.CT.Thevanai Achi had two sons, one Shri C.V.CT.Venkatachalam Chettiar and another C.V.CT.R.Ranganathan Chettiar. Shri C.V.CT.Venkatachalam Chettiar has a son by name C.V.CT.Chidambaram Chettiar and Shri C.V.CT.Chidambaram ...
Nadar Mahajana Sangam, Through Its General Secretary (for and on Behal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC111; (2006)4MLJ385
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The appellant is the petitioner in WP (MD) No. 3716 of 2004 filed for issuance of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 herein from effecting transfer or allow the respondents 3 to 5 to deal with 95418 shares of the second respondent/Bank from in any manner. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 28.01.2005, hence the present writ appeal.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits as follows:The appellant herein is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The second respondent/Bank is a scheduled bank incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. It is stated that the writ petition has been filed by the appellant herein to protect the interest of the members of their Sangam, who are the main subscribers of the second respondent/Bank, when attempts were made by the respondents 2 to 5 herein to transfer 95418 shares to third parties contrary to the guidelines issued by the first respondent...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. India Pistons Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)330; [2006]282ITR632(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos. 247, 1038, 435 & 1157/Mds/99, dated 15.03.2005.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessee is a manufacturer of Pistons for automobiles and other stationary engines. The assessee filed returns of income for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, wherein the assessee claimed inter alia, deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act (herein after referred to as 'The Act') in respect of its income from exports, deduction in respect of interest on foreign bills (for 1995-96 only), and deduction of customs duty from closing stock. The assessing officer found that the assessee had excluded the sales tax and excise duty from the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act and accordingly he re-computed the total turnover including these elements. The assessing officer also disallowed the interest on fore...
K. Jeyachandran Vs. the Special Officer, V. Kurumbapatti Primary Agric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR1199]; (2006)IILLJ609Mad
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. Mr. K. Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. By consent of both the counsel, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.3. This writ petition is filed for direction against the respondents to disburse the subsistence allowance of the petitioner for the period from 10.4.2004 to 30.9.2005 to the tune of Rs.60,718 in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981.4. The case of the petitioner is that he was placed under suspension from 10.4.2004 and ultimately removed from service by the first respondent by his order dated 30.9.2005 based on the departmental proceedings. He has been giving many representations to the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension namely, from 10.4.2004 to 30.9.2005 and ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. L.S. Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Mad)381; [2006]284ITR100(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard. The above appeals are preferred under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act 1961 against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras Bench 'C' dated 23.6.2005 and 26.4.2005 in I.T.A. Nos. 433, 434, 190, 220/Mds/2001.2. The facts in brief are: The assessee company is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of yarn. For the assessment years 1993-94, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1995-96, the assessing officer, disallowed the claim of the assessee in respect of replacement of old machinery by new one on the ground that the same cannot be treated as a revenue expenditure; treated the MODVAT credit relating to the replacement of machinery as capital; recalculated the benefit under Section 80HHC by including the excise duty and sales tax to the total turnover and also disallowed the excess remuneration paid to the director. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax(appeals)...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)449; [2006]282ITR259(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 against the order passed in IT (SS). A. No. 118/Mds/2001, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'D' Bench, raising the following substantial questions of law :(A) Whether or not when the returns and the statements of the seller admit higher sale consideration actually received, the Revenue is justified in fixing the sale consideration at the higher amount than what has been declared ?(B) When the assessee did not give any explanation to the notings found and at the same time the Revenue is able to corroborate the same with the statement of the seller for the purpose of determination of actual sale value, would the lower authority be justified in interfering with the same ?(C) When consistent sworn statements were taken into consideration along with evidences found at the time of search, would they all be liable to be rejected on the basis of one statement in bet...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. G. Susila
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Mad)189; [2006]285ITR292(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 was justified in cancelling the penalty order passed Under Section 271(1)(a) in the case of the partners for the reasons that partnership had already been penalised on this account?.2.The assessment years involved are 1983-84 to 1986-87. The assessee is a partner in two firms, viz., M/s. K.C. Builders and S.S. Builders, and the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act were initiated against both the firms due to the delayed filing of its returns of income and the penalties were also imposed on the two firms for the assessemnt years 1983-84 to 1986-87. The assessee as a partner in the firm also delayed in filing her returns of the income for the assessment years in question and the assessing officer imposed on the assessee penalties of...
S.M.A. Mohamed Yusoof Vs. the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ707
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents, to accept his notice dated 18.3.2002 for voluntary retirement; to relieve him of the service from the date of expiry of notice period of three months; and consequently to pay all pensionary benefits.2. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit are as follows:(a) Petitioner joined as Assistant Statistical Investigator on 28.4.1980 in the second respondent Office and was promoted as Statistical Inspector during December, 1981. In the year 1997, after obtaining No Objection Certificate from the respondents, petitioner joined in overseas employment at Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. The leave applied for by the petitioner was initially sanctioned for a period of two years by the first respondent in G.O.3D.No. 1, Planning and Development (ST3) Department, dated 10.3.1997 from 7.4.1997 to 6.4.1999. Thereafter petitioner applied for extension of leave for one more year from 7.4.1999 and then for a further period of thr...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »