Chennai Court June 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. Sri K. Rangaswamy Naidu and Sri K. Damo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR109(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, which is common in both tax cases:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing that the assessee's share of loss from the firm be set off against other income, when in fact the return filed in the case of the firm has been treated as non-est, having been filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act?2.1. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1987-88. The assessee in each case is a partner in the firm, M/s.Visalakshi Combines, Coimbatore. The claim of the assessee before the assessing officer was that the share of loss from the firm, Visalakshmi Combines was to be set off against his other income. 2.2. The assessing officer noticed that the due date for filing the return of...
Dr. M. Vennila Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep. by Deputy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC69; (2006)3MLJ376
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. A simple, but important question having far reaching consequences in the field of education and employment arises for consideration in this batch of writ petitions. 2. Since the issue raised in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order. 3. For convenience, we shall refer the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 32895 of 2005.(a) According to the petitioner i.e., Dr. M. Vennila, she passed out M.B.B.S. degree in the year 2005 in Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University. She got her name registered in the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, Chennai on 2.5.2005. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the respondent in the writ petition issued Notification on 1.7.2005 for filling up the post of Assistant Surgeon (General/ Specialty) in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service for the year 2003-04. The respondent also issued an advertisement in the Newspapers for the said direct recruitment for filling up 1295 posts of Assist...
G. Sundaravel and Brothers Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2006
Reported in: [2008]306ITR38(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This writ petition is filed for the relief of issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in I.T.A. No. 1722/MDS/99 and quash the order dated August 16, 2005, and direct the first respondent to condone the delay in filing the appeal and hear the appeal on the merits.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Income-tax Department.3. The order, which is put in issue, is an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal refusing to condone the delay of 25 days in filing an appeal under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act.4. It is interesting to note that the reason given by the assessee has been extracted by the Appellate Tribunal, but ultimately dismissed the application by saying that there found no reasonable cause for the inordinate delay of 25 days and thereby fore-closed the valuable appellate right of the assessee. The reason for the delay as extracted by the Tribunal is as follows:The order of the Co...
Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Limited Represented by Mr. S.K.Venkataram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Mad)426; [2006]287ITR25(Mad); (2006)3MLJ1106
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. With the consent of counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the files of the respondent herein in PAN AX 1/015/2000-01 dated 30.03.2005 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and quash the proceedings of the respondent in AX1/015/2000-01 dated 30.03.2005 as illegal and without jurisdiction.3. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above writ petition and as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows:(i) The petitioner is a registered company which is running hospitals for diagnosis, mitigation and treatment of ailments and diseases in different parts of the country. By an order of amalgamation dated 18.04.2000, a scheme was approved to amalgamate Deccan Hospital Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'DHCL') running a hospital at Hyderabad, whic...
St-cms Electric Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(202)ELT238(Mad)
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. By consent of learned Counsel on either side the writ petition ilselt is taken up for final disposal.2. The above writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Cerliorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order C.No. IV/16-2-2003-CE X.P01, dated 30-6-2004, passed by the third respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue necessary certificates to the petitioner to procure LSHS as per the exemption granted under Notification No. 6 of 2003 dated 2-3-2003.3. Though several grounds have been raised in the writ petition and lengthy arguments were advanced on either side in the light of the view I am taking in this matter those submissions and contentions are not being considered,4. In the above writ petition the order passed by the third respondent in C.No. IV/16-2-2003-CE X.P01 dated 30-6-2004 is challenged. In paragraph 22 of the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition it is stated as follo...
Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: (2007)109TTJ(Chennai)112
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16-12-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-XI, Chennai and relates to the assessment year 1998-99.2. The first issue relates to the sustenance of disallowance of Rs. 6,35,640/- being the amount of advance written off as irrecoverable.3. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us and the precedents relied upon. The assessee had placed an order on 3-2-1996 with Alps Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. for the construction of a cold storage plant at its factory at Coimbatore. The assessee had advanced Rs. 7,89,500/- for the erection and commissioning of two numbers of Eurostat-1000 refrigeration machine and other installations at the Coimbatore plant. Works could not be executed due to some reasons. A sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was recovered. The balance amount of Rs. 5,89,500/- was claimed as a deduction from the total income.4. It was contended before us that the advance given to the contr...
R. Kumudhini, Vs. the General Superintendent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2494
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. The wife and children of the deceased S. Ramasubramanian have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T.O.P.99 of 1995 on the file of the III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.2. The appellants herein who were the claimants before the Tribunal have filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 10,75,000/- for the death of their family head. In support of their claim, the first claimant who is the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Pandiarajan, an eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W. 2 besides marking documents in Exs.P.1 to P.7. On the side of the respondent, one Muneer Basha, the driver of the tractor-trailer, was examined as R.W.1. and no document was marked in support of its defence. 3. The Tribunal, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence and after holding that the accident was caused du...
G. Arumugam and Anjalai Vs. R. Krishnamurthy and the New India Assuran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC36; (2007)1MLJ866
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. Challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Court of Small Causes, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') made in M.C.O.P. No. 639 of 1995 dated 28.04.1997 for a sum of Rs. 50,0 00/- in respect of death of their only son Poovannan aged eight years, the parents of the deceased, have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 1,50,000/-.2. In support of their claim, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, one Gnanaprakasam, an eye-witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2 and one Amaldass, Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Department was examined as P.W.3 besides marking Legal Heir Certificate as Ex.P.1, First Information Report as Ex.P.2, Copy of sketch as Ex.P.3, Post-mortem Certificate as Ex.P.4 and the school Transfer Certificate as Ex.P.5. On the side of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in.3. The Tribunal, after analyzing the oral and do...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. G. Vijaya Kandiban and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC96
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Madras has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the decree and judgement of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Judge of Small Causes) Madras made in MCOP No. 2021 of 1994 dated 07-08-1997. In respect of the injuries, the first respondent/claimant has filed a petition for compensation claiming a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In support of his claim, he himself got examined as PW1. One Mr. Amaladoss, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Investigating Department was examined as PW2 and Dr. N. Saichandran was examined as PW3, besides marking Exhibits P1 to P7. On the side of the respondents, no oral evidence was let in and an insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. The Tribunal, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence and after holding that the accident was due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle in question, passed an award for a sum of Rs. 71,500/- with 12 percent interest per annum from the date of petition t...
R.M. Chinniah Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2006
Reported in: (2007)103ITD479(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 30th March, 2005 and relates to the asst. yr. 1997-98. The assessee raised the ground that CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act.2. The brief facts of the issue are that the original assessment for the asst. yr. 1997-98 was completed under Section 143(l)(a) on 16th Dec, 1998. Subsequently, reassessment notice was issued under Section 148 and reassessment was completed on 22nd March, 2002 under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147. During reassessment the AO added a sum of Rs. 1,43,847 to the returned income of Rs. 69,536 and thereby he determined the total income at Rs. 2,13,373. The AO also levied interest under Sections 234A and 234B. The assessee filed a petition under Section 154 on 13th Sept., 2004 for deletion of interest levied under Section 234B of the Act since there was no liability to pay advance tax in accordance with Section 208. The AO dismissed the petition u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›