Chennai Court March 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.
Seeniammal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ312
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The writ petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 15, Rural Development (C1) dated 20.2.2003 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part II Section III dated 20.2.2003 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.2. The petitioner, was elected as a Chairman of Srivilliputhur Panchayat Union on 31.10.2001 in the reserved women constituency. Out of the total strength of 15 Councillors of the Panchayat Union, according to the petitioner, 2 belonged to Congress, 6 to AIADMK, 3 MDMK, 2 DMK and one each to Pudhiya Tamilagam and Communist Party of India. Accordingly, the petitioner assumed office on 31.10.2001. She continued for ten months and then the trouble started at the instance of the local M.L.A. Thiru R.T. Inbatamizhan, who was trying to interfere with the administration of the Panchayat Union. When he had been insist...
M.K. Dange Vs. Chairman-cum-managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Cor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ34
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of suspension dated 7.12.1993 as extended by order dated 6.6.2005, passed by the third respondent and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including payment of arrears of pay and allowances from the date of his suspension till the date of reinstatement together with interest at 12% per annum and consider the petitioner for promotion to the next post on par with his immediate juniors.2. When the miscellaneous petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the arguments in both the miscellaneous petition as well as the main writ petition will be the same. Hence with the consent of both sides, the main writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal.3. The original order of suspension dated 7.12.1993, which is also impugned in t...
Tcv Engineering Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Mad)161; [2006]284ITR470(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present Appeals are filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 28.11.2002 in I.T.(SS) A No. 110/Mds/98. These appeals came up before this Court and this Court admitted the appeals on 17.06.2003 and formulated the following Substantial Question of Law:-(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessment pursuant to the notice under Section 158BD issued in the instant case based on the action under section 132A in the case of T.T.V.Dinakaran is valid in law notwithstanding that no part of the assessment made was based on any records seized in the course of the action under Section 132A?(2) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the disallowance of supervisory charges, which were duly recorded in the accounts regularly maintained by the appellant and which were not seized or requi...
Jai Murugan Textiles Limited, Rep. by Its Joint Managing Director V.G. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ549
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. Mr. Manohar Sundaram, learned Government Advocate for Taxes takes notice for the respondent. By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The short facts of the case as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition are as follows:The petitioners are manufacturers and dealers of Cotton Yarn. The petitioners are registered dealers under the TNGST Act and are assessees on the file of the respondent herein. The petitioners were finally assessed to tax on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 2,99,54,024/- and Rs. 98,89,036/- respectively for the assessment year 2003-04 under TNGST Act. 3. The respondent has issued a notice in TNGST 2620585/03-04 dated 25.08.2005 stating that on further verification of account it was noticed that the petitioners has purchased Sko from M/s. S.G.R. Petro Organic Limited Cochin to the tune of Rs. 1,57,800/- and the same has not been accounted by the petitioners. The res...
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner (Ct), Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2006
Reported in: [2006]147STC111(Mad)
ORDERP.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This revision is filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madurai dated 19.2.2004 passed in M.T.S.A. No. 26 of 2003, by the State raising the following question of law:Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in approving the reappraisal of evidence made by the first appellate authority dislodging the cogent and convincing reasons given by the assessing officer? 2. The facts leading to the above question of law are as under: The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer by order dated 24.1.2001 determined the total and taxable turn over of the assessee at Rs. 14,72,570/- and Rs. Nil respectively for the year 1999-2000. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reviewed the assessment by utilising the estimation arrived at by the Enforcement Wing Officials during the course of inspection conducted at the place of business of the assessee on 19.7.1999. In the above inspection, they watched sales and gathered details of sales of parcel service ...
Jindalpipes Ltd. Vs. Beard Sell Satec Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC352; 2006CriLJ3170
K.N. Basha, J.1. These appeals against acquittal are preferred by the complainant in C. C. Nos. 5370 and 5371 of 1998 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai-1 challenging the orders dated 17-1-2001 dismissing the complaints filed by them on the ground of non-appearance in the cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. A perusal of the records shows that though notice has already been ordered to the fourth respondent, service is awaited. No useful purpose will be served in keeping the appeals pending. The appeals relate to the year 2001. Hence, Mr. N. Doraiswamy, learned Counsel is appointed by this Court as the legal aid counsel for the fourth respondent.3. A perusal of the records further discloses that the learned Magistrate called the abovesaid C.Cs. filed by the appellant/complainant on 17-1-2001 and dismissed the complaints on the ground of non-appearance of the complainants. In these cases, the learned Magistrate passed a me...
Late A.Y. Prabhakar (indl.) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)105TTJ(Chennai)391
1. These appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are directed against the respective orders of the CIT(A), Chennai. The relevant assessment years involved in these appeals are 1997-98 to 2002-03.2. The first legal issue in these six appeals of the assessee, late Shri A.Y. Prabhakar (Individual) is, whether, the reassessment framed by the AO on a dead person without bringing on record, the legal representative, is valid, void or voidable 3. The briefly stated facts of the case are, that, the assessee has declared the income from house property in respect of the following house properties which were constructed with the money borrowed from Indian Bank and ANZ Grindlays Bank in 1989 : _________________________________________________________________________ S.No. House No. Amount of borrowed capital (Rs.) _________________________________________________________________________ 1. 5, Lattice Bridge Road, Chennai 14,54,000 __________________________________________________________________...
The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. Vs. the Dy. Commissioner/Joint
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)105ITD502(Chennai)
1. Let us first take I.T.A. Nos. 844 & 845(Mds)/2003 for the Assessment Years 1989-90 and 1990-91. The only issue arises for consideration in both the years is regarding the validity of reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) held that reopening of the assessment for both the Assessment Years are bad in law. The Revenue filed the present appeal against the order of the CIT(A).2. The learned Departmental Representative (D.R.) submitted that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for the Assessment Years 1989-90 and 1990-91 on the basis of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. CIT . According to the learned D.R., the assessee has claimed interest on purchase of securities as revenue expenditure for both the Assessment Years. The Assessing Officer found that in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. (supra), the interest paid by the assessee on purchasing securities would f...
The Jt. Commissioner of Income Vs. India Equipment Leasing Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: (2008)111ITD37(Chennai)
1. These cross appeals by the Revenue and the assessee for the assessment year 1997-98 arise out of the order of CIT(A)-IX, Chennai.2. First we will take up assessee's appeal in ITA No. 2021/Mds/2000.The first issue for consideration relates to recognition of income from non-performing assets. The facts of the case as apparent from record are that assessee is a non banking financial, company and recognised by Reserve Bank of India. The assessee is following mercantile system of accounting. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that assessee had not included income on non-performing assets (NPAs), while computing the returned income. The assessee vide his letter dated 26 February 2000 stated that it was following prudential norms prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India and based on the guidelines issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and Reserve Bank of India they have not recognised income in Profit & Loss A/c in respect of no...
B. Mahalakshmi Vs. Tamilnadu Industrial Investments Corporation, Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas408(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records connected with communication of the first respondent dated 3.9.2001 and to quash the same so far as it relates to the petitioner and to issue a direction to the first respondent to return all the original deeds relating to the property described in the schedule.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :-Notice dated 3.9.2001 has been issued by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investments Corporation to the present Respondent No. 2 with a copy to Thiru. T.M. Balakrishnan, 41D, Vivek Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai. Such notice purports to have been issued under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It relates to sanction of term loan incurred by Respondent No. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that the schedule property was never given as a collateral security by T.M. Balakrishnan, the deceased...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »