Chennai Court June 2006 Judgments
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2006
Reported in: (2007)103ITD457(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee are emanating out of the order of the CIT(A)-III, Chennai, dt. 4th Oct., 2002. The assessment was framed by the AO under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yr. 1997-98.2. At the outset, the learned Counsel of the assessee made a mention during the course of hearing that the cross-objection of the assessee be taken first for hearing as the jurisdictional issues are raised by the assessee by way of cross-objections. The learned Departmental Representative agreed to this.3. The first issue in the cross-objection is regarding reopening of the assessment under Section 147 r/w Section 148 of the Act. The briefly stated facts are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 26th Nov., 1997, which was revised on 18th March, 1998. The revised return was taken up for scrutiny by the AO by issuing notice under Section 143(2) and completed the assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Director of Income Tax Vs. Willingdon Charitable Trust
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2006
Reported in: (2007)103ITD493(Chennai)
1. These cross-appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are directed against separate orders of the CIT(A), Chennai. The relevant assessment years involved in these appeals are 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 2000-01.2. The common issue raised, in these appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee is regarding denial of exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act, 1961 on the basis that the trust properties held are used for commercial purposes instead of charitable purposes and consequent to that, computation of income from these properties as well as donations is assessed as business income.3. The briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a registered trust under Section 12A(a) of the Act. It was established as a club by name "The Willingdon" which was started in 1924 with the then Governor of the State of Madras, the Administrative General of the State of Madras and the Secretary and Treasurer of State Bank of India as trustees. The main object of the club was to encourage...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Mysore Rep. by Its Chief Manager Vs. Pukhrajmal Sugarmal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2006
Reported in: [2008]143CompCas218(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. The present appeal is filed by the first defendant against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge in C.S. No. 260 of 1988 dated 5.5.1999 decreeing the suit for a sum of Rs. 10,27,500/- jointly and severally against the two defendants.2. The plaintiff (Respondent No. 1 in the present apeal) is a financier. Defendant No. 2 (Respondent No. 2 in the present appeal) is the Proprietor of Suriya Movie Unit and Appellant/Defendant No. 1 is a Nationalised Bank. The suit has been filed through the power agent. According to the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff was carrying business under the name and style of 'Lunkad Finance'. First defendant, which is one of the subsidiary branches of State Bank of Mysore, had one Branch Office in Madras. Defendant No. 2 approached the plaintiff to advance a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs for the business of Defendant No. 2 as a film producer. The plaintiff agreed to provide finance subject to the first defendant furnishing a bank guaran...
Tag this Judgment!The Director of Rural Development Vs. A. Periyanayagam and the Registr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ674
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. The Director of Rural Development, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 6727 of 1995, dated 23.4.2001, has filed the present writ petition.2. First respondent herein is the contesting respondent. The case of first respondent is as follows:First respondent, the applicant before the Tribunal, who was working as a Rural Welfare Officer Grade-II in the Thandarampet Panchayat Union, North Arcot Ambedkar District, (Vellore District), was charged with the offence of accepting a total sum of Rs.130/- on three occasions between July 1984 and December 1984 from one P.Ramakrishnan of Changam Taluk, promising him to get a loan from the Co-operative Society for purchasing a sheep unit. A charge memo was issued and enquiry was conducted by the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings and on the basis of the enquiry report, it was found that the charges levelled against the first respondent/applicant are proved and the first respondent was awarded punishment of reduc...
Tag this Judgment!N. Pankajam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Commissioner and Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ702
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to memo 25025/Pa.P(Ni)3/PTC/96, dated 10.01.1997 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same directing the first and second respondent to give the petitioner all outstanding benefits due to the family of the deceased Muthukumaravelu and a suitable job to one of the petitioner's son M. Rajesh, in the second respondent Corporation according to his qualification. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit is that the petitioner is the wife of R.Muthukumaravelu, who has put in 30 years of service and he was found missing since 18.05.1987. At that time, he was working as Time Keeper / Checking Inspector (Staff No. TK/CI.1028). She gave a police complaint about the missing of her husband in P.3.Police Station, Ottery. The police has also issued a Certificate on 17.09.1988, stating that man mi...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Properties, Rep. by Its Partners, L. Dharmichand and P. Vinod Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ522
P.K. Misra, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 11.9.2000 rejecting the application filed by the present appellant, namely, Appln. No. 262 of 2000 arising out of C.S. No. 830 of 1996. 2. The said suit has been filed by the present appellant claiming the following reliefs:(a) directing the first and second defendants jointly and severally to perform their obligations under the agreement dated 31.10.1996 by executing and registering a Deed of Sale in respect of the property being buildings and structures and all that piece and parcel of land of an extent of 1 Ground and 2103 Sq.ft. comprised in R.S. No. 622/3 Block No. 36, Nungambakkam Village bearing Corporation Door No. 10, Scheme Road, Mahalingapuram, Madras 34 more particularly described in the Schedule and handing over vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. (b). restraining the First and Second Defendants by an order of permanent injunction from dealing with the property described in the Schedule in ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Dakshinamoorthy Vs. the Chief Engineer (General) Tamil Nadu Highway ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ452
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. By consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal in the admission stage itself.2. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the charge memo dated 27.4.2006.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition, as stated in the affidavit are as follows.(a) Petitioner was appointed as driver in the office of the Superintending Engineer (Highways), Villupuram, the second respondent herein, to drive the heavy goods vehicle. On 7.2.2000, when the petitioner was driving Lorry bearing registration No. TMO-3450 on Ulundurpet-Vridhachalam main road, near Seppalakurichi bus stand, a person by name N. Gunalan, who was working in the Highways and Rural Works department as Gang Mazdoor, travelled in the same lorry. He had been careless in not properly seating himself inside the lorry and he was smoking in the vehicle and in the course of the journey, due to the carelessness of Gunalan, he was thrown out of the lorry, who s...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Vs. A. Pac ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ754
P.K. Misra, J. 1. The present writ petition is filed by Union of India, the Commandant, Defence Services Staff College and the Mess Secretary, Officers Mess Defence Services Staff College, Wellington Branch, Nilgiris, against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1039 of 2001. 2. The aforesaid Original Application has been filed by the present contesting respondents 1 to 26. The prayer in the said Original Application filed before the Tribunal was for quashing the letter dated 29.5.2001 to the effect that the request of the present respondents 1 to 26 for grant of temporary status and regularisation of their services was not acceptable. The Tribunal quashed the letter dated 29.5.2001 and directed the present writ petitioners. to consider the case of the applicants for grant of temporary status and the consequent regularisation. In case it is required to formulate the service conditions, this may be done. Having regard to this fact that this may take time, ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Palaniammal Vs. Antony Jayaraj, the Special Officer, the Psur Puddu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ678
ORDERP.K. Misra, J. 1. The present application has been filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging that there has been wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 9.8.2002 in W.P. No. 8155 of 1995.2. The present applicant had filed W.P. No. 8155 of 1995 claiming reinstatement in service with full backwages and other attendant benefits. By order dated 9.8.2002, the writ petition was allowed in the following terms:24. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and further a sum of Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid towards back-wages. The direction regarding reinstatement should be carried out within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.Thereafter, the present contempt petition has been filed by the successful writ petitioner.3. The basic allegations are to the effect that even though the applicant was allowed to attend office, she was ...
Tag this Judgment!Hema Mohnot Vs. State Through Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Adminis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Mad)418; [2006]285ITR402(Mad)
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Case as been filed against the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Economic Offences Wing-I), Chennai-8 in M.P. No. 1389 of 2003 in E.O.C.C. No. 179 of 1985, dated 18.7.2003 dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner under Section 245 Cr.P.C.,2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:(a) The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner and others for offences under Sections 120B IPC r/w. Sections 420, 467, 468, 472, 181, 182, 177, 193, 196. 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 380, 379, 419, 420 r/w. Section 511 I.P.C., and 277 of Income Tax Act. The petitioner is Accused No. 12 in the said complaint. P.Ws 1 to 69 were examined on behalf of the complainant and Exs.P.1 to P.26 were marked. When the examination of witnesses was over by 11.11.1987 and the prosecution closed at that stage, the accused were required to be present in Court on 18.12.1987 for questioning under Section 313(1) Cr.P.C., Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »