Chennai Court April 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.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner (Court), Sale ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ232
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. The above Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent pertaining to the Order dated 27.03.2001 made in C.T.S.A.No. 508/2000 and quash the same. 2. without going into the merits of the case, the above Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. In the affidavit, the delay in filing the above Writ Petition is sought to be explained as follows : :- It is most respectfully submitted that the impugned Order was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner [CT], Salem on 23.10.2001 and after calling for the relevant assessment records and after having prepared the necessary review report the records were forwarded to the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 07.01.2002. The Legal Wing of the Commercial Taxes Dept. After considering the merits of the case and the issues involved thought it fit to circulate the files for obtaining le...
Director General of Police Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Vs. Kuppusamy and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC416
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioners seek a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 19.3.2004 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the second respondent herein, made in O.A.No.8181 of 1999 and quash the same.2.1. The facts leading to the filing of the above writ petition are as under.The first respondent was enlisted as Grade II Police Constable on 5.9.1969. He was promoted as Grade I Police Constable and thereafter, as Head Constable with effect from 16.1.1998. He was residing in Door NO.36, Old Tindivanam Police line. Opposite to his house, there is a common well for the police staff residing in the police line and a horse shed at the South West corner. In between the well and the horse shed, there was some vacant site. 2.2. The first respondent constructed a pucca building in the vacant place, without prior permission and he destroyed the horse shed causing damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- Hence, he was placed under suspension by or...
Ravi Prakash Khemka, Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2006
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Mad)342; [2007]288ITR362(Mad)
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. Mr. Narayanasamy, takes notice for the respondents. By consent of Counsel on either side, the main Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal.2. The above Writ Petitions have been filed for the issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in M.P.Nos.263,261,262/MDS/ 2005 dated 25.11.2005 and quash the orders passed by the first respondent and consequently direct the first respondent to hear the appeals in I.T.A.T.Nos.328,323,324/ MDS/2000, by giving opportunity to the Petitioners.3. The short facts that are necessary for the final disposal of the Writ Petitions are as follows ::The appeals filed by the Petitioners/Appellants in the above Writ Petitions in I.T.A.T.Nos.328,323,324/MDS/2000 were posted for final hearing before the first respondent Tribunal on 21.06.2005. The authorized representative/ Advocate of the Petitioners by letter dated 20.06.2005, addressed to the Deputy Registrar, Appellate Tribunal Income Tax, C...
income Tax Officer Vs. S. Rajendran
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)104TTJ(Chennai)408
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Chennai, dt. 4th Oct., 2004. The relevant assessment year involved in this appeal is 2001-02.2. The only issue in this appeal of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) has wrongly allowed the claim of the assessee after reworking the depreciation at 20 per cent, for the purpose of computing the short-term capital gains from the sale of two mini vans used in the business of hiring.3. We have heard both the sides and gone through the facts of the case.It is seen from the order of the AO that the assessee was running one lorry and one van on hire purchase and the assessee has admitted the hire purchase income on account of running of these vehicles under Section 44AE of the Act in the earlier years. The assessee has sold these vehicles and credited a sum of Rs. 2,02,500 on account of sale of these vehicles in the books of account. The assessee has declared the same as capital gain at Rs. 11,102. The assessee in his submis...
Diebold Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)104TTJ(Chennai)410
1. This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 2001-02 is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 28th Feb., 2005. The first two grounds are general in nature where the assessee contends that the assessment is bad in law and passed without application of mind. These grounds were not pressed and, therefore, not adjudicated.2. The next ground is with regard to allowability of deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act. This issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1996-97 in ITA No. 1313/Mds/2002 in the assessee's own case and the Tribunal, vide order dt. 20th Jan., 2006 has held that the benefit of deduction as per the mandate of the statute could only be given to the profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking. Benefit under this section is available to the undertaking and not to the assessee. The income earned from AMC charges (Annual Maintenance Charges of ATM), installation and technical charges, consultation charges and licence ...
income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. N. Padma
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Chennai)739
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Chennai, dt. 8th Dec, 2004. The relevant assessment year involved in this appeal is 2001-02.2. The only issue in the Revenue's appeal is whether payment made to distributor falls within the purview of expenditure incurred so as to attract the provisions of Section 40A(3) or not 3. We have heard both the sides and gone through the facts of the case.The assessee has taken the Gaiety Theatre on lease from one Shri C.T.Senthilnathan Chettiar. The assessee has entered into agreement with various distributors for screening of pictures on the theatre on share basis. The collection on account of sale of tickets belongs to the distributor/exhibitor. During the asst. yr. 2001-02, i.e., the relevant assessment year, the assessee filed return of income showing the net collection of Rs. 30,68,993 in her books of account. The assessee claimed to have paid the sum of Rs. 15,87,429 as rent to Shri C.T.Senthilnathan Chettiar, t...
Diebold Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit, Company Circle-1(4),
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)103ITD149(Chennai)
This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2001-02 is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28-2-2005. The first two grounds are of general in nature where the assessee contends that the assessment is bad in law and passed without application of mind. These grounds were not pressed and, therefore, not adjudicated.The next ground is with regard to allowability of deduction under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act. This issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal for the assessment year 1996-97 in ITA No. 1313/ Mds./2002 in the assessee's own case and the Tribunal, vide order dated 20-1-2006 has held that the benefit of deduction as per the mandate of the statute could only be given to the profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking. Benefit under this section is available to the undertaking and not to the assessee. The income earned from AMC charges (Annual Maintenance Charges of ATM), installation and technical charges, consult...
A. Abdul Razak Vs. Director of Town Panchayat and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ779
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the third respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka. No. 236/A1/98 dated 13.04.1998 and direct the second respondent to give posting to the petitioner as Bill Collector with all the consequential benefits. 2. The facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows : The petitioner was appointed as Bill Collector on 07.12.1964 through Employment Exchange. The petitioner became Junior Assistant on 25.07.1967 and continued as such upto 1969. Thereafter, he was posted as Bill Collector in 1969 and continued as such in Town Panchayat, Lalpet. The services of the petitioner have been regularised from 27.08.1965. While the petitioner was working as Bill Collector, he applied for un-earned leave on Medical grounds for three months from 01.11.1977 to 31.01.1978 and no order was passed.3. Again the petitioner went on medical leave for four months, from 01.02.1978 to 01.06.1978, which wa...
RAP MFRS' Employees Welfare Union rep. by General Secretary Mr. Muthus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CTC399; [2006(110)FLR791]; (2006)IIILLJ437Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. RAP MFRS' Employees Welfare Union through its General Secretary, Hosur, aggrieved by the Arbitration Award dated 24.12.2001 in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2000 of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds.2. Before K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM,J. one of the contentions of the petitioner in seeking to set aside the award is that the agreement for reference to the Arbitrator was not published in the gazette in terms of Section 10-A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.D. Act'). It was further contended that non-publication of the agreement as required, would render the award null and void. In support of the above contentions, learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on two Full Bench decisions of this Court, viz., (i) 1977 (1) LLJ 382 (R.K. Steels v. Their Workmen); and (ii) 1989 LLJ 245 (Krishnaveni Transports v. Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madras).3...
K. Marappan Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CTC391; 2006(3)KLT458; (2006)2MLJ810
P. Sathasivam, J.1. A Five Judge Bench of this Court in M. Thanikkachalam v. Madhuranthagam Agricultural Co-operative Society 2001 WLR 1 : 2001 (1) LLJ 285, has held that no writ will lie against a Co-operative Society, since it is not an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. While hearing Writ Appeal No. 1573 of 1998 filed against the order of learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition that no writ will lie against a Co.operative Society, the then First Bench (Markandey Katju, C.J. & F.M.K.,J.) doubting the Five Judge Bench decision, by order dated 09.08.2005, referred the following question to be decided by a Larger Bench.Whether the decision of the Five-Judge Bench of this Court in M. Thanikkachalam v. Madhuranthakam Agricultural Co-operative Society 2001 WLR 1 holding that no writ will lie against a co-operative society is correct in law?Pursuant to the same, the said question is referred before a Full Bench of us consist...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »