Chennai Court January 2007 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Venkatesa Spinners Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR205(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore. The assessment year under consideration is 1991-92. The question of law raised in the appeal is whether the Assessing Officer has the power to reject the change in the method of valuation of closing stock adopted by the assessee. There is no quarrel about the settled position of law that the Assessing Authority has the power to reject the change in the method of valuation of closing stock when change itself is not genuine and bona fide. It is an accepted principle of law that under Section 145, first proviso to Sub-section (1), that even in cases where the accounts are correct and complete to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, in cases where the income could not be properly deduced therefrom, then it is open to the Assessing Officer to compute the income in such a manner as he may determine. The crux of the provisions under Section 145 is that even if the Assessing Officer ac...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Autotex Ancillaries Private Limited, Rep. by Its Managing D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(117)ECC24; 2007LC24(Madras)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petition is filed seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Order No. 332/2005 dated 21.11.2005 issued by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal by taking cognizance of the Board's circular No. 41/2005 Cus dated 28.10.2005 issued in this respect and direct the third respondent to condone the 2 days delay in filing with respect to 2 shippping bill Nos. 18 dated 2.5.2003 and 46 dated 3.5.2005 and 4 days delay in filing in respect of shipping bill No. 1538 dated 3.5.2003.2. The petitioner company imported the raw materials 'celcon' used in the manufacture of bobbins under DEPB scheme vide bill of entry No. 4796260 dated 8.4.2003 and paid basic customs duty, additional customs duty and special additional duty by way of debiting the DEPB licence vide shipping bill bearing Nos. 18 dated 2.5.2003, 46 dated 3.5.2003, 1538 dated 3.5.2003 and 226 dated 14.5.2003. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!Vasanthi Nelson Vs. Antony Nelson Alias A.B.H. Nelson, Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ369
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 983 of 2005 is filed against the order dated 13.07.2005 allowing the application in I.A. No. 1025 of 2004 in O.S. No. 135 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Udagamandalam, filed under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment receiver to take possession of the suit schedule property, manage the same and submit the accounts to the trial Court till the suit is disposed off. Civil Revision Petition No. 1134 of 2005 is filed against the order dated 13.07.2005 dismissing the application in I.A. No. 259 of 2005 as to the maintainability of the suit and consequently to reject the plaint under Order XIV Rule 2 (5) and Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The necessary facts are as follows:The respondent in both the revisions, is the husband, the plaintiff. The revision petitioner is the wife, the defendant. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referr...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Smt. Sarada Nedungadi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Mad)136; [2007]291ITR322(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this Court in T.C.P. No. 148/96 dated 11.8.1997, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our consideration:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials in holding that the settlement deed executed by the assessee was only a family arrangement and there is no liability to gift-tax ?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials in holding that the assessee constituted a tavazhi and the Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932 applies to the facts of the case ?2.1. The brief facts for deciding the above issues are as follows:For the relevant assessment year 1985-86, the assessee filed a return declaring taxable gift in respect of gifts made by her to her children and grandson. Subsequently, a revised return was filed by her de...
Tag this Judgment!N.E.P.C. Textiles Ltd., Rep. by Its Director Vs. the Assistant Provide ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC415; (2007)ILLJ902Mad; (2007)3MLJ306
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P. No. 2621 of 1997 dated 10.12.2001 declining to interfere with the proceedings of the respondent dated 14.2.1997.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows.(a) Appellant is a Textile Mill, engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. The Mill was originally owned by M/s. Bharat Textiles, which was a partnership firm and it was taken over by the petitioner Mill with effect from 14.2.1994. According to the appellant Mill, at the time of taking over, the Mill had only 3000 spindles and after that the appellant added another 3000 spindles in the same unit and established a new unit known as Unit-II with spindleage of 18,000.(b) At the time of taking over, eight employees were employed in the Bharat Textiles and they were absorbed by the appellant Mill and in respect of them, contribution under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act were made by the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Grand Bazzar Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Mad)461
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos. 462 & 463/91 dated 26.6.2001.2.1. The appellant/assessee is a partnership firm doing the business of selling garments. For the assessment years 1981-82 and 1984-85, the assessee filed its returns on 28.12.1983 and 28.2.1985 respectively. The Assessing Officer completed the assessments under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said assessments were set aside by the Commissioner of Income tax under Section 263 of the Act with a direction to consider the entire cash credits appearing in the books of account as undisclosed income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the Tribunal directed the assessing officer to make a thorough investigation and arrive at the undisclosed income after considering the growth of wealth. 2.2. Afterwards, considering the credits in the books of account, the Assessing...
Tag this Judgment!i.K. Lodi Vs. the Appellate Authority Under Tamil Nadu Shops and Estab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ45Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1.The above Writ Appeal is directed against the Order of the learned single Judge, dated 01.04.2003, passed in W.P. No. 9537 of 1997, in and by which, the learned Judge set aside the order of the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act and allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Management - Bharat Overseas Bank.2. According to the 2nd respondent/Bank, it is a banking company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and licenced to carry on business as a Banking Company under the Banking Regulation Act, 1947. It has its Head Office at Chennai-2. The appellant herein joined the services of the Bank as a Clerk and he was promoted in the year 1988 as an Officer. He was later on transferred and posted as Accountant at Burra Bazar Branch, Calcutta. One K. Raghunath was the Manager of the said Branch from 31.07.1989 to 22.10.1990 while the appellant was the Accountant from 23.05.1988 to 03.11.1990. According to the Bank, duri...
Tag this Judgment!Anjali, Vs. the Secretary to the Government, Prohibition and Excise De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC353
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The four H.C.P. Nos. 1022/2006 to 1026 of 2006 filed on behalf of the four detenus were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order as the basic allegations are common. 3. The orders of preventive detention have been passed in respect of each detenu on 16.9.2006 under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). In the grounds of detention it is indicated that these two persons along with several others have committed a murder as a retaliation on 10.8.2006. On the basis of this allegation Crime No. 707/2006 on the file of Periayamedu police station has been registered along with several others under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 302 and 506(2) I.P.C. Subsequently, the two detenus were in custody and re...
Tag this Judgment!Elgi Finance Limited, Rep. by Its Asst. Manager - Legal and Authorised ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: [2007]136CompCas543(Mad)
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the complainant in C.C. No. 448 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Coimbatore, against A2, A4 & A5. The private complaint was preferred by the defacto-complainant, P.W.1, on behalf of the de jure complainant viz. M/s ELGI Finance Limited.2. The short facts as narrated in the private complaint which was preferred against the accused under Section 200 of Cr.P.C for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:The Assistant Manager of the de jure Complainant has preferred this complaint. The de jure complainant viz. M/s ELGI Finance Limited, is a finance company carrying on business such as hire purchase, Leasing, Bill Discounting, Merchant Banking and Collecting Fixed Deposits from their customers. The accused introduced themselves to the complainant and requested the complainant to extend revolving purchase bill discoun...
Tag this Judgment!Sarojini Ramaswami Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Mad)103; [2007]291ITR308(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The appeals are by the assessee. At the time of admission, the following questions of law were raised:1. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the whole income derived from the sale of the property is subject to capital gains only in the hands of the appellant ?2. Whether the Tribunal is right in disregarding the claim of other four co-owners and filing of the return by them in respect of respective shares in the property and assessed to capital gains the same income in their respective hands by the Department ?3. Whether the Tribunal is right in ignoring the documentary evidence of fixing the ceiling as for the family under Section 5(1)(ii)(A)(C) of the Urban Ceiling Act, 1978, wherein it was clearly established that property belonged to the family ?4. Whether the Tribunal is right in rejecting the claim of the relief under Section 54F of the Act ?5. Whether the Tribunal is right in rejecting the valuation shown by the appellant which is based on the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »