Chennai Court July 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. Thirumalai Fertiliser and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR517(Mad); (2006)4MLJ1179
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue against the order passed in I.T.A. No. 864/Mds/2000 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'A' Bench. On 21.10.2003, this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following question of law. 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment could be rectified Under Section 154 of the IT Act to ensure that the statutory provisions of Section 44AE were complied with or it would amount to a redoing of the assessment2. The facts leading to the above question of law are as under:The relevant assessment year is 1994-95 and the accounting year ended on 31.03.1994. The assessee is a registered firm. The assessee is a dealer in fertiliser and also derived income from plying 3 lorries. The assessee filed return of income for the said assessment year on 13.02.1995 declaring a total loss of Rs. 2,18,712/-. Later,...
iocee Exports Ltd. Vs. Kalyanee Marine and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC93
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called 'the Act') to pass a pro-order prohibiting the Garnishce/3rd respondent from paying a sum of Rs. 7,80,000/- with the Bank guarantee bearing No. LG/109/6/99 executed by them in favour of the 1st respondent pending execution of the award dated 10.3.2006 passed by the 2nd respondent and also prohibiting the 1st respondent from encashing the above said Bank guarantee pending execution of the award dated 10.3.2006 passed by the 2nd respondent.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Application are as follows:An award was passed by the 2nd respondent-Arbitrator against the applicant-Company on 10.3.2006. As per the award dated 10.3.2006, the applicant herein was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,36,032/- to the 1st respondent and by the very same award 2nd respondent-Arbitrator directed the 1st respondent to invoke the Bank guarantee dated 1.2.1999 ...
N. Kaliappan Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR1035]
P. Jyothimani, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents. By consent of both Counsel, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.This writ petition is filed for a direction against the first respondent to take action under the Revenue Recovery Act against the third respondent towards the payment of gratuity to the petitioner as determined by the second respondent in P.G. case No. 148 of 2003, dated July 29, 2003.2. The case of the petitioner is that he worked under the third respondent mill and retired from service on September 14, 2002. Since the gratuity amount was not settled; the petitioner had approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour for filing an appeal for the payment of gratuity amount. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, passed an order in P.G, Case No. 148 of 2003, dated July 29, 2003, directing the third respondent/management to pay an amount of Rs....
Dinosaur Steels Limited Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Spec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR476(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessee, in I.T.A. No. 96/Mds/2000, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'D' Bench raising the following substantial questions of law. 1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that the order of rectification passed by the Respondent in restricting the quantum of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act upon taking into consideration the unabsorbed losses is sustainable on facts and in law?2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that there was no debate in understanding and interpreting the provisions of Section 80IA of the Act, especially with reference to the computation part of the said section?2. The brief facts leading to the above questions of law are as under:The relevant assessment year is 1997-98 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.1997. The assessee filed return of income on 28.11.1997 disclosing an income of Rs. 3,31...
Magam Inc. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR566(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 4.9.2001 made in ITA Nos. 2871, 2872 and 2724/Mds/1992.2. The assessee is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of blasting and excavation of Granite and then cutting and polishing them into blocks known in the industry as dimensional blocks. The main submission of the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was that granite was not to be considered as a mineral and therefore, the relief under Section 80HHC was allowable. The Commissioner agreed with the appellant and allowed the appeals. On appeal by the Department, the Tribunal held in favour of the Department. Hence, the present appeals raising the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the profits derived from the export of the dimensional granite bloc...
B. Nageswara Rao Vs. the Commandant, Disciplinary Authority, Central I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ722
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the order dated 10.07.2000 of the first respondent removing him from service and also the consequential orders of the second and third respondents dated 18.12.2000 and 26.05.2001 confirming the order of the first respondent.2. While the petitioner was working as a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as 'the CISF'), a charge sheet dated 03.04.2000 was issued to him containing four charges. He gave an explanation dated 17.04.2000 to the said charge sheet, denying all the charges. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and he had also proceeded to conduct the enquiry without providing a Defence Assistant to the petitioner even though the latter had insisted for the same as per the CISF Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). At the enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated partially to the extent that the charge sheet was partially pro...
Elizebath Anne Simpson and ors. Vs. K. Shivashankaran, the Tahsildar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)4CTR(Mad)426
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioners, complaining that the common order dated 20.01.1997 made in W.P.Nos. 2585 and 2586 of 1994 has not been implemented, filed contempt petition Nos. 742 and 748 of 2002.2. The contempt petitioners filed the said writ petitions praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, particularly, the first respondent Tahsildar, Thovala Taluk, Kanyakumari District to grant patta for 65.86 acres and 205.42 acres of lands as per the Commissioner's plans marked as Exs.C.2 and C.4 in O.S. Nos. 66 and 67 of 19 86 respectively on the file of District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. After hearing both parties, this Court, by order dated 20 .01.19 97, allowed both the writ petitions and directed the said Tahsildar to issue patta within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. It is also the grievance of the petitioners that in spite of various representations, the respondent herein (R.1 in writ petitions) has not granted ...
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Mohamed Ali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC653
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur dated 17.9.1999 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 212 of 1994, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Division-I has filed the above appeal.2. In respect of grievous injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 11.10.1993, the respondent herein prayed for a compensation of a sum of Rs. 4 lakh. The Tribunal, after finding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus, passed an award for Rs. 1,20,680 with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. Questioning the same, Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.3. Even at the outset, learned Counsel for the appellant fairly states that they are aggrieved only with regard to quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, there is no need to go into the finding relating to negligence. The injured/claimant was examined as P.W. 1. In his evi...
Chemech Laboratories Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST471(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in TNGST No. 1421877/2004-05 and quash the impugned order dated May 19, 2006 and further direct the respondent to pass a fresh assessment order after considering the objections dated April 21, 2006 and the details filed along with the objections dated April 21, 2006.2. In spite of repeated cautions made by this Court as to the nature of the assessment framed by the assessing officers, the callousness with which the assessments are made has not stopped. The impugned assessment order is yet another example for the same.3. For the assessment year 2004-05, the assessing officer has issued proposal notice to the petitioner on April 5, 2006. Subsequently, on April 7, 2006, a revised notice has also been issued. In both the notices, the asses-sees were called upon to file their objections, if any, to the pro...
Tasmac Limited Vs. Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (MaIn Bench ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST511(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The learned Special Government Pleader takes notice.2. The prayer in the writ petitions are for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent above named in its proceedings in S.T.M.P. Nos. 161 and 162 of 2005 respectively, and quash the orders passed therein dated January 30, 2006.3. On a mere reading of the orders of the Tribunal, which are impugned in these writ petitions, it is seen that the Tribunal has travelled beyond the power conferred on it under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for filing an appeal.4. Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 reads as follows:Section 36. Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.-(1) Any officer empowered by the Government or any person objecting to an order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under sub-section (3) of Section 31, or by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (3) of Section 31A, or by the Deputy Commissio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »