Chennai Court May 2006 Judgments
West Asia Maritime Ltd. Vs. the Income-tax Officer,
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: May-19-2006
Reported in: (2008)111ITD155(Chennai)
1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals) and relate to the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. Since both the appeals rotate around an identical issue, for the sake of convenience these are consolidated and disposed of by a common order.2. Various grounds taken in these appeals resemble so many radii of a circle, starting from different points on its circumference but all oriented towards the question: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee had committed any default in not deducting tax at source in the context of payment made under the alleged Agreement for Bare Boat Charter cum Demise (hereinafter called 'BBCD') with Dolphin Maritime Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called 'DMCL')? 3. Shri V. Ramachandran, the learned Counsel for the assessee vehemently opposed the impugned order. It was contended that the agreement entered into by the assessee with DMCL, under which the assessee secured a vessel with an option to...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Computers Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: May-19-2006
Reported in: (2008)303ITR205(Chennai)
1. These cross appeals by the Revenue and the assessee for Assessment Year 1989-1990 arise out of order of CIT(Appeals)-IV, Chennai. These appeals were heard together and for the sake of convenience, they are disposed off by this common order.2. The first issue for consideration in assessee's appeal relates to re-opening of assessment under Section 148. The facts of the case as apparent from record are that return of income was filed on 26^th December 1989 admitting total income of Rs. 65,61,625/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on 31^st March 1992 after making prima facie adjustments. Later on during the course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 1990-91 it was noticed that in the preceding assessment year the assessee company had created a provision towards unexpired warranty to the tune of Rs. 21,08,5507- out of sale proceeds of computers; thereby the assessee company had suppressed sales to the extent of Rs. 21,08,550/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Jayantilal Jivraj and Co. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Owning Sou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC236; 2006(3)CTC438; (2006)3MLJ99
K. Suguna, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 28.12.1998 passed in O.A. No. I/1078 of 1990 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench. The facts of this appeal are that a consignment of 171 bundles were booked from Shilong Out Agencies to the Salt Cataurs under R.R. No. 697667 dated 20.06.1988. After a delay of 42 days, the said consignment has reached the destination point. When the goods were unloaded, it was found that 70 bundles are being received in a good condition and 86 bundles were damaged by water and 15 bundles were missing. The appellant has received the 70 bundles. With regard to the 86 bundles, which has been damaged by water and found to be unfit for any use, the appellant sought for open delivery for assessment of the damage. Hence, on 02.08.1988 after verification and finding that 70 bundles were in sound condition, the claimant took delivery of the 70 bundles. Since the other 86 bundles were completely damage...
Tag this Judgment!M. Murugesan Vs. the Director General of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ236
ORDERK. Suguna, J.1. The writ petitioner has initially filed O.A. No. 1026 of 1996 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,Chennai, for regularisation of his service in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police in terms of the order passed in O.A No. 1565 of 1995 dated 13.11.1995 and the same has been transferred to the file of this Hon'ble Court and re-numbered as W.P. No. 32507 of 2005.2. Originally the writ petitioner was directly recruited as a Grade I Police Constable with effect from 15.04.1974. Subsequently, he was promoted as a head constable with effect from 15.03.1982 and he was promoted as a Sub Inspector of Police as out of turn promotion with effect from 26.06.1987 on a temporary basis. In the year 1989, though an order of reversion had been issued, by virtue of the interim order of stay granted by the Tribunal in O.A. No: 820 of 1989 dated 13.06.1989, which was subsequently continued by an order dated 31.08.1989, it was not given effect to. To say in other words,...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasam Pillai Vs. Subramanian and Kandasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-16-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ92
T.V. Masilamani, J.1. The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.195 of 1987 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi is the appellant herein. The respondents filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property with mesne profits and costs. The appellant resisted the suit by filing the written statement and the trial court having considered the evidence and arguments of both sides decreed the suit as prayed for and granted three months time for delivery of possession of the suit property to the respondents herein. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellant preferred the appeal before the Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi in A.S.No.41 of 1996. The learned Subordinate Judge after analysing the recorded evidence in the light of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the findings rendered by the trial court. Hence the Second Appeal.2. The parties to this Second Appeal...
Tag this Judgment!C. Manonmony Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, Education ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-16-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ242
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of the second respondent dated 27.4.2005 and direct the second respondent to sanction the petitioner's post as B.T. Assistant in the 5th respondent School with effect from 2.7.1993.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:(a) Petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant in the 5th respondent School from 2.7.1993, which is an Aided Minority School. Petitioner passed M.A. and B.Ed degrees. Petitioner is fully qualified to hold the post of B.T. Assistant as per Annexure V of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Rules, 1974, and the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grants) Rules, 1977. The staff grant and maintenance grant of the 5th respondent School is fully paid by the Government and the sanction of post in the 5th respondent School is governed by the...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Investment Services Limited, Unit of Shriram Group of Companie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-16-2006
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas830(Mad); (2006)4MLJ743
ORDERT.V. Masilamani, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by Shriram Investment Services Limited (hereinafter called 'SISL') the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal and Palki/Jeypad Investment (P) Ltd/Jeypad Investment (P) Ltd (hereinafter called 'Palki/Jeypad') is the claimant before the said Tribunal. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal as communicated to the petitioner herein in the letter dated 12.2.2005.2. The facts leading to the filing of this revision may be set out briefly as under:-(a) The petitioner herein started the financial institution known as 'Shriram Mutual Fund' and issued a 'scheme' called 'Risk Guardian-95' and the same was announced for public issue from October 1995 to January 1996. The second respondent herein representing the first respondent-Palki/Jeypad showed interest in the issue floated by the SISL to the extent of nearly US $ 1 million and after discussions, SISL sent a draft agreement regarding the ...
Tag this Judgment!Revathi Equipment Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: May-13-2006
Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Chennai)429
1. In this appeal, various grounds have been raised by the assessee, but at the time of hearing, the learned counsel of the assessee submitted that the only dispute is levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return declaring income of Rs. 16,67,51,120 which was accepted under Section 143(1). However, interest under Sections 234B and 234C was charged.Aggrieved by this intimation, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). It was argued before the learned CIT(A) that in view of the following decisions, interest under Sections 234B and 234C is not chargeable: (i) Priyanka Overseas Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2002) 75 TTJ (Del) 783 : (2001) 79 LTD 353 (Del); (ii) CIT v. Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd. and Ors. (2004) 186 CTR (Uttaranchal) 144 ; (2003) 264 LTR 320 (Uttaranchal); (iii) Haryana Warehousing Corporation v. Dy. CIT (2000) 69 TTJ (Del) 859 : (2001) 252 ITR 34 (Del); (iv) Dr. (Mrs.) Devinder Kaur S...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ram Kumar Giri
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: (2006)103TTJ(Chennai)352
1. This appeal by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee emanate out of the order of CIT(A) dt. 30th March, 2004 and pertain to asst. yr. 2000-01. (i) The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the receipt by the assessee of Rs. 57.84 crores was a capital receipt and therefore exempt from taxation. (ii) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the sum of Rs. 57,84 crores received by the assessee was taxable under the provisions of Section 28(ii). (iii) The learned GIT(A) should have appreciated that the agreement dt. 16th April, 1999 or thereabouts was in substance only a cloak to cover the payment of Rs. 57.84 crores to the assessee and the assessee was never in possession of any know-how, which in any case was always an asset of the Coca Cola Company, USA or its authorised suppliers. (iv) The learned CIT(A) should have appreciated that the taxability of the receipt of Rs. 57.84 crores being a question of law should have been considered also under the provisions of Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Baheeswari Rani Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ235
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the fourth respondent, dated 27.9.2001, under which the fourth respondent, while considering the application of the petitioner, has passed the order rejecting the permission sought for by the petitioner to remove the dead and wind fallen trees on the ground that the estate is located in a core area of Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve and forms part of the sanctuary. 2. The fourth respondent has filed the counter affidavit, wherein, it is specifically admitted that the petitioner's land, which is the subject matter in this writ petition, is a patta land and the same is not declared as a wildlife sanctuary or national park, but is notified as a private forest as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949. It is not even the case of the fourth respondent that even in cases where the land is notified as a private forest under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Ac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›