Chennai Court January 2007 Judgments
Trichy Distilleries and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST723(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent above named in its proceedings in T.A. No. 606 of 1998 and quash the order dated December 24, 1999 passed therein and further direct that exemption be granted to the petitioner on the turnover of freight in dispute, viz., Rs. 19,91,643.2. The issue involved in the present case is whether freight charges in a sum of Rs. 19,91,643 would form part of the sale price and taxable at the hands of the petitioner as a sale turnover.3. The assessee, who is a dealer in manufacturing and selling of alcohol, Co2 gas acetaldehyde, acetic acid and ethyl acetate has reported a total taxable turnover of Rs. 13,34,62,733 in the monthly returns filed for the assessment year 1993-94. The dispute in this case with regard to the freight charges in a sum of Rs. 19,91,643 collected by the petitioner. The assessing officer verified the sales as...
Tag this Judgment!Dxn Herbal Manufacturing (India) Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: (2008)110ITD99(Chennai)
1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of the CIT(A) dt. 17th Aug., 2006 for the above assessment years.Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common, these appeals were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The assessee raised the following grounds: (1) The AO passed the order in violation of principles of equity and natural justice and also denied opportunity of examining the witness from whom statements were recorded and used against the assessee for completing the assessment. (2) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IB holding that the assessee is not engaged in manufacturing activities and instead is only doing trading of mushroom powder in capsule form though the assessee is engaged in the operation of production of capsules. (3) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of payment of differential duty ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Siva, Assistant and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Pallavaram Municipal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ92
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. Mrs. D. Geetha, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent-Municipality.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the common order of the Tribunal dated 22.10.2002 passed in O.A. Nos. 1946 of 2002 etc. By the said common order, while dealing with the case of 15 employees of the first respondent-Municipality and while examining the correctness of the order of the first respondent-Municipality, dated 26.3.2002, in and by which, the first respondent-Municipality sought to recover the property tax arrears from the petitioners and other employees, which became time barred during the relevant period when they were employed in the first respondent- Municipality as Revenue Assistants and similar other posts and who were stated to be in-charge of the collection of property tax from the house owners, the Tribunal took the view that the petitioners were liable to be punished for their inaction in the discharge of the duties as regards c...
Tag this Judgment!D.S. Mahi and Ram Diya Vs. the Special Police Establishment
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)PTC0(Mad)
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. Accused 9 & 10 in C.C. No. 2/1997 on the file of X Additional Subordinate Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, are the appellants herein.2. The facts of the prosecution case in a nutshell relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:2(a) With the avowed object of rehabilitating Ex- servicemen in Civil Life, the Ministry of Defence, Government of India used to allot discarded army vehicles to them at concessional rates on certain conditions, one of the conditions being that the vehicles so purchased at concessional rates should not be resold by the Ex- servicement within a period of three years from the date of purchase. 2(b) For availing this benefit and concession, the Ex-servicemen should submit an application to the MGO Branch of the Army Head Quarters (in duplicate) through the concerned District Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen Board. In this application the applicant has to give the following undertaking: (i) that he is not re-employed in...
Tag this Judgment!The Director (Personal), Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Vs. R. Senat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad118; [2007]135CompCas329(Mad); (2007)1CompLJ272(Mad); 2007(208)ELT3(Mad); (2007)1MLJ1; [2007]75SCL20(Mad)
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. The 3rd defendant in O.S.No.482/1992 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Pollachi, who has succeeded in his defence, lost the same in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff in A.s.No.12/1995 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.482/1992 for declaration that his date of birth is 20.8.1964 and also for consequential mandatory injunction directing the 3rd defendant/appellant herein to correct the date of birth of the plaintiff in his service register as 20.8.1964 in stead of 19.3.1963.2. The averments in the plaint in brief relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:2(a) The plaintiff is the second son of his father Ramasamy Gounder and mother Rathinam. The plaintiff's elder brother was born on 16.11.1961 and the plaintiff's younger brother was born on 14.11.1967. The plaintiff studied in Nachimuthu Polytechnic during 1976-1982. Thereafter...
Tag this Judgment!L. Hemalatha Vs. N.P. Jayakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Mad98
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1 The above appeal is directed against the order dated 3.1.2002 passed in F.C.O. P. No. 40 of 1999 on the file of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, annulling the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent that took place on 2.2.1998 on the ground that the respondent wife has been subjected to recurrent attacks of insanity, the consent of the petitioner husband for marriage was obtained by fraud and the respondent wife was pregnant at the time of marriage through some other person.2. Facts, in nutshell, are as follows:2.1.The marriage of the petitioner husband with the respondent wife, which was an arranged one, was solemnized on 2.2.1998 at Hotel Kanchi, Chennai, according to Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged in the petition filed by the petitioner husband that even during nuptials, which was arranged in the house of the respondent wife, she was restless and she took some tablets and after some time, she was drowsy and immediately went...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Suresh B. Mehta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2007
Reported in: [2007]291ITR462(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal made in I.T.A. No. 1261/Mds/ 2002, dated April 28, 2006.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved is 1997-98. The assessee is carrying on business of manufacture and sale of jewellery, gold ornaments at Chennai under the name of Bapalal and Co. and also exporting diamonds and precious stones from Bombay under the name of Suresh Bapalal. During the relevant assessment year, he claimed Rs. 49.75 lakhs as deduction under Section 80HHC by treating the export as a separate business. The Assessing Officer restricted the benefit to Rs. 37.43 lakhs on the ground that the entire business of local sale and export sale is one and the same, thereby calculating the deduction on the basis of the total turnover of all the business of the assessee. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, by order dated Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2007
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Mad)250
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. These tax case appeals are directed against the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 26.9.2002 made in ITA No. 2776/Mds/1992 for the assessment year 1989-90 and order dated 30.9.2002 made in ITA No. 2444/Mds/1993 for the assessment year 1990-91 raising the following common substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest on securities is taxable only on specified dates when it became due for payment and not on accrued basis? 2.1. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, while filing return of income for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91, claimed exclusion of the sums representing the accrued interest for the period till 31.3.1989 and till 31.3.1990 for the respective assessment years, in respect of the securities held by them on the ground that it did not become due in the respective previous years and that even after the omission of Section 18 of the...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Damani Vs. the Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR654(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J1. This tax case reference arises at the instance of the assessee under the Wealth Tax Act. This relates to the assessment year 1990-91. The question of law raised is as follows:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the amount of Rs. 43,25,266/- received from the Coffee Board forms part of taxable net wealth of the applicant or not?. 2. It is stated that the assessee received a sum of Rs. 43,25,266/- from the Coffee Board being the refund of sales tax on the ground that no sales tax would be leviable on export sales. The assessee claimed that the said sum was not includable in the wealth tax since the amount would have to be deposited with the government if the decision went against the Coffee Board. The Assessing Authority however rejected the plea and included the same in the amount. 3. On appeal before the Commissioner, the claim of the assessee was rejected on the ground that the amount contin...
Tag this Judgment!Elegant Garments, Rep. by Its Managing Partner Vs. Regional Provident ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC563; [2007(113)FLR121]; (2007)IIILLJ60Mad
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 5.3.2002 made in W.P. No. 15116 of 1994 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of the respondent imposing damages for the belated remittance of the provident fund contribution.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are that by letter dated 29.10.1984 the appellant Garment Export Firm requested the respondent to allot Provident Fund Code number so as to enable the appellant to deduct provident fund subscription from its employees, but there was no reply. On 16.12.1984 the first respondent requested the Enforcement Officer to examine the applicability of the Act to the appellant establishment and submit a coverage proposal along with necessary Government order and the copy of the said letter was marked to the appellant. The Provident Fund Inspector visited the appellant factory and all the relevant documents were furnished bef...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »