Chennai Court October 2007 Judgments
Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Chennai)865
1. These appeals came before e as a Third Member to express my opinion on the following questions: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(Appeals) is justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining the value of the assets and recalculate the depreciation which is subject matter of lease transaction with M/s. Ganesh Benzoplast? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(Appeals) is justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim of depreciation on the asset leased to M/s. Rajinder Pipes Ltd., Mumbai? 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) is justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition towards interest on transaction treated by the Assessing Officer as loan transaction? 2. I have heard the rival submissions. In regard to the first question the assessee leased out assets to M/s. Ganesh Benzoplast, Mumbai. It clai...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Chennai)532
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 21st March, 2007. The assessee raised the ground that CIT(A) erred in confirming the withdrawal of deduction under Section 80-IA and confirming the setting off the notionally carried forward loss against profits generated by the industrial undertaking during the relevant assessment year.2. The brief facts of the issue are that the assessee company has started three power projects. Two power projects in the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1996-97 and one in the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1999-2000. As per findings of the CIT(A) which appeared in para 2 of appellate order, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IA for the first time in the current assessment year viz. asst. yr.2004-05. On going through the P&L a/c, it is seen that the assessee has been setting off loss from these three units against in come of the company for the earlier years. This is the first year of claim of ...
Tag this Judgment!thedavoor Primary Agricultural Bank Ltd. Rep. by Its President T.A. Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR974]; (2008)ILLJ577Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner is the President of the petitioner society and the Society had entered into a Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, I.D. Act') regarding wages of the employees.2. The action of the then Board of Directors entering into the Settlement was questioned by the authorities of the Co-operative Department and also refused to implement the Settlement. They have come up before this Court with a prayer for direction that the Settlement cannot be interfered with by any authority of the Department.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and M.R. Raghavan for the 3rd respondent.4. The prayer in this writ petition is misconceived in the light of the Larger Bench-decision of this Court reported in K. Marappan v. District Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal : (2006)2MLJ810 and, therefore, the writ petitions is not maintainable.5. Ho...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Spinning Mills Association Rep. by Its Chief Advisor K. Ven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR501]; (2008)ILLJ583Mad
ORDERAjit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. The petitioner is an association of yarn spinning mills in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner association is espousing the cause of the spinning industry and redressing the grievances of its members through various legal avenues. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a declaration to declare the G.O. Ms. No. 1, Labour and Employment Department, dated January 3, 2007, by which the 'Employment in Textile Mills' is included in Part I of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act XI of 1948), as unlawful, ultra vires, and amounting to abuse of power conferred under Section 27 of the said Act.2. For the sake of convenience, we narrate briefly the material facts leading to the filing of, this writ petition. The object of the Minimum' Wages Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as the 'Act'), as stated in the preamble, is to provide for fixing minimum rates of wages in certain employments. The schedule attached to the Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Cholomandalam Investemnt and Finance Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: [2009]309ITR110(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeal is filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench dated 23.11.2006 made in I.T.A.No.1227/Mds/2005 for the assessment year 1996-97.2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of leasing and finance. For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessing officer, while making the original assessment has called for the basic details regarding two purchasers. After receipt and taking into consideration of the details furnished by the assessee, the assessing officer came to the conclusion that the purchase of two items and leasing them to related parties do not fall under the category of sale and lease back transaction and therefore the assessing officer has not made any further investigation. The assessing officer disallowed the depreciation in respect of machineries got back under lease from two parties and added back to the total income. Against that order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Inc...
Tag this Judgment!M. Velmurugan Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)CTC183; (2008)4MLJ637
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioner is a former President of Iruppukanmaipatti Village, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. He was holding the office from 2001 to 2006 as President. He has stated that at the time of his tenure as President he formulated a scheme and provided a playground for the Panchayat Union School to an extent of 25 cents which is a Poramboke land. It is also stated that around the playground a fence has been made. Presently, a building for the Public Distribution System is being constructed in a portion of the above said playground and the materials for the construction have been scattered in the playground which caused hindrance to the students of the school to play in the ground. Even though some other portions of Poramboke land is available by the side of the playground, the concerned officials after removing the stones planted around the playground and they are making constructions. The petitioner on 20.08.2007 preferred a complaint before the 06.09.2007 ...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman, Union Bank of India, Vs. All India Union Bank Officers' ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ469
P.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. Anandha Krishnan for the Appellants, Mr. Yashod Vardhanf Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 1, Mr. John Jachariah for Respondent No. 2 and Mr. V.T. Gopalan, Addl. Solicitor General, for Respondent No. 3 in W.A. No. 419 of 2005.2. The dispute in the present appeals lies within narrow campus. However, to highlight such dispute, it is necessary to notice the relevant facts in brief.3. Writ Petition No. 3291 of 1996 was filed by All India Union Bank Officers' Federation (Respondent No. 1 in W.A. No. 419/2005) for a direction directing the Chairman of Union Bank of India and other subordinate officials to follow the regulations 7 and 19 of the Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 197 6 strictly by not referring any matter, which does not have a vigilance Angle to the 4th respondent (Respondent No. 2 in W.A. No. 419/2005) and not to refer any matter after the second stage of enquiry and not be bound by any of the recommendation...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Eswaramoorthy Vs. Suriya Chakra Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. by Its M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC473
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J. 1. The complainant in C.C. No. 602 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Erode, is the petitioner in the above criminal revision case. On the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents herein, the learned Magistrate has taken the complaint on file for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 602 of 2006. The cheque in question is alleged to have been returned/ unpaid with an endorsement 'Account transferred to suit filed account'. After completion of trial and hearing of arguments was over and when the judgment has been reserved, the petitioner filed a petition in C.M.P. No. 1384 of 2007 under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'Cr.P.C.')praying to alter / add a charge under Section 420 Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') against the respondents herein on the basis of the contentions raised in the written arguments submitted by the learned Counsel for the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Archana Bansal Vs. Nepc India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: [2008]88SCL97(Mad)
R. Banumathi, J.1. The suit and applications have been filed at the instance of a shareholder of the first defendant challenging the transfer of Wind Energy Division from the first defendant to the second defendant.2. The applicant/plaintiff has filed the above said two applications seeking interim injunction: (a) restraining the second defendant from carrying on business of Wind Energy Division under am other name or through any other person, (b) restraining the second defendant from in any manner pending compliance with the terms and conditions of sanction accorded by the shareholders of the first defendant to the defendants not to sell, pledge, mortgage or transfer the Wind Energy Division.3. The factual background which lead to the filing of the suit are as follows:(a) The first def endant-'NEPC' India Ltd. ('D1 -NEPC') has been carrying on and engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, exporting, supplying, importing, and dealing in Wind turbine generator, generator and Wi...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Finance Limited Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/The ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: [2008]303ITR364(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The substantial question of law formulated for entertaining the appeal is as follows:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in treating the amount of Rs.49,83,021/- collected as contingent deposit as income of the appellant2. The facts of the case are as follows:The appellant is a non-banking company. The relevant assessment year 1995-96. The appellant filed a return of income admitting a total income of Rs.48,49,70,550/-. The return was accepted vide intimation under Section 143(1)(a) dated 20.3.1996. Subsequently, regular assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 27.1.1998 determining the taxable income at Rs.53,71,17,630/-. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has added the contingent deposit, among other items. 3. During the relevant assessment year, the appellant collected a sum of Rs.63,74,680/- from its customers as contingent deposit. The collection was in anticipation of the sales tax ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »