Chennai Court October 2007 Judgments
Matheson Bosanquet Enterprises Ltd. (Formerly Burnside Investments and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: [2009]316ITR375(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The assessee company has preferred this appeal formulating the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that profit from sale of investment should be assessed as Business income as against capital gains?(ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not appreciating that the shares were held by the appellant as investment and hence the profit on sale should be assessed as capital gains?(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that premium for renouncing the rights share should be assessed as business income?(iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that depreciation in value of the original shares on account of issue of rights shares should not be reduced from sale proceeds of the rights entitlement?The relevant assessment year is 1993-94....
Tag this Judgment!G. Radhakrishnan Vs. the President, Edayakottai Panchayat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ1132
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent, dated 17.09.2007, whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the property in S. No. 646/70, Edayakottai Village, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District, within seven days, and to quash the same.2. According to the petitioner, he is a resident of Edayakottai Village, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District; his father one S.P. Govindan Chettiar purchased one cent of land comprised in Survey No. 646/70 by means of a registered sale deed, dated 21.10.1970; after his father's lifetime, he is in possession of the property; he has put up a grocery shop therein, got the electricity connection and, for the past 37 years, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property, by paying property tax, house tax and professional tax.3. It is the further case of the petitioner that Patta Updating Scheme was launched in the y...
Tag this Judgment!Siv Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-2007
Reported in: [2008]306ITR114(Mad); [2009]148TAXMAN442(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. For the assessment year 1993-94, assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on March 29, 1996, determining the total taxable income at Rs. 11,34,15,530. In the said assessment order, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation for a sum of Rs. 6,90,204.56 in respect of a new unit VSF-III an export oriented unit. On a perusal of the record, the Commissioner of Income-tax found that the machinery pertaining to the VSF-III unit had actually worked for 112 days starting from September 28, 1992, to March 31, 1993. The Commissioner was of the view that as per the proviso to Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, the claim of depreciation should have been restricted to 50 per cent, of the normal depreciation as the asset had actually worked for only 112 days. The excess depreciation of Rs. 2,57,38,370 should have been disallowed. In that view of the matter, the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vinbros and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-2007
Reported in: 2009[15]STR647
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal is filed by the revenue seeking admission by framing the following question of law:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that blending and bottling of IMFL would amount to 'manufacture' for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 80IB2. The assessee herein is small scale industry recognised as so by the Director of Industries, Pondicherry. It set up a second unit to manufacture and bottle Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor (IMFL) at Pondicherry. In its return for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, it claimed deduction under Section 80IB of the Act in respect of the profits and gains derived from the second unit. The assessing officer however rejected the plea on the issue that the process carried on by the assessee for its product does not constitute 'manufacture' within the meaning of Section 80IB of the Act. He further held that setting up of the second unit is only an expansion or re...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Alloy Steels Vs. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2007
Reported in: (2008)13VST424(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petition is filed challenging the correctness of the order made in O.P. No. 52 of 2002, whereby the Taxation Special Tribunal rejected the prayer of the petitioner for deletion of the penalty imposed on it under Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.2. For the assessment year 1993-94, the writ petitioner a manufacturer of steel and iron rough castings reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 68,60,790.10 and Rs. 66,44,492.10, respectively, in the monthly returns in form 1 under the TNGST Act. While framing the assessment, the assessing officer checked the returns with the books of account and almost all the details furnished by the assessee have been accepted. However, the details in the books of account stated that the first sales of cast iron rough sketch under Section 3(3) of the Act taxable at three per cent was for a turnover of Rs. 17,68,302. Only that portion of the turnover has been rejected by the assessing o...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Agro Engine (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Mad)470
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner, has challenged the constitutionality of Clause (ia) of Section 40(a) of IT Act introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 2004 w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 as ultra vires and striking down the same insofar as it provides that the expenses in respect of which tax is not deducted at source or paid over to the Government within the time provided under Section 200 shall not be deductible in computing the income.2. Pending writ petition, the petitioner has sought for stay the operation of Clause (ia) of Section 40(a) of IT Act and also for a direction to the second respondent to accept the petitioner's return for the asst. yr. 2007-08 which is due on or before 31st Oct., 2007, declaring the income of the petitioner without the application of Clause (ia) of Section 40(a) of the IT Act introduced by the Finance Act (No. 2) of 2004.Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman learned senior standing counsel for income-tax takes notice for the respondents and submitted that the amended...
Tag this Judgment!The Sub Registrar, Registration Department and ors. Vs. R. Rama and th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ825
P.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Ms.D.Rekha, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the appellants and Mr. C. Jagdish, learned Counsel for the first respondent.2. The present respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition No. 7596 of 2005 praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 i.e., appellants 1 to 4 herein, to accept the stamp duty of Rs. 1,82,000/- paid by her and not to levy additional stamp duty in respect of document No. 2875 of 2001. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 placed reliance on G.O. (Ms) No. 64, dated 19.02.1996, which relates to transactions made by the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation (SIDCO). The learned single Judge, while issuing a writ of mandamus, has observed that the Registering authority cannot demand more stamp duty on the basis of guideline value or any notional market value ignoring the actual sale consideration indicated in the document. The said order of the learned single Judge is challenged by the State and other dep...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Makkal Tholai Thodarpu Kuzhuman Ltd. Vs. Mrs. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC694; (2007)6MLJ1152
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 5644 of 2007 is the revision petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned first appellate Judge, the VI Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 12.10.2007 passed in CMP No. 1924 of 2007 in C.M.A. No. 104 of 2007 filed by the respondent in C.R.P., granting an order of interim injunction till 26.10.2007 against the revision petitioner from telecasting the tele-serial either in the name of 'Maveeran Veerappan' or 'Santhana Kadu' including its advertisement and trial version of tele-serial about the petitioner's husband Veerappan in any form.2. This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner from publishing, broadcasting telecasting the serial 'Maveeran Veerappan' and projecting the name, identity and interpretation of M. Veerappan in any form and in any name which relates to M....
Tag this Judgment!R. Venkatachalapathy Vs. the Senior Manager, Indian Overseas Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1329
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. Heard the counsel appearing for the appellant. Perused the records, including the order of the learned single Judge. The appellant is the original writ petitioner. In the writ petition, he has prayed for quashing the departmental proceedings initiated agianst him, in respect of which a First Information Report (F.I.R.) has also been lodged. 2. The appellant was appointed as Sub Staff in the Indian Overseas Bank, Madurai in the year 1993. He has been working in the Madurai-Medical College Extension Branch, Madurai. On 20.12.2005, he was suspended from service for encashing certain demand drafts issued in favour of third parties. On 14.8.2006, the respondent issued a charge sheet to the appellant. The basis of the charge sheet is that he has stolen two demand draft leaves and fraudulently prepared two drafts and thus, he has misappropriated the Bank's money to the tune of Rs.5,95,000/-. The Bank lodged a police complaint against the appellant on 8.9.2006 and a criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!Tvl. Big Bags International (P) Ltd. Vs. the Registrar, Tamilnadu Taxa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2007
Reported in: (2008)13VST272(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The prayer in W.P. No. 33078 of 2003 is for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in O.P. No. 742/2003 dated 6.8.2003 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and to direct the second respondent to release the goods to the petitioner detained in GD No. 1/2003-04 dated 10.4.2003 (detention order). 2. The prayer in W.P. No. 33079 of 2003 is for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to calling for the records in O.P. No. 725/2003 dated 6.8.2003 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and to direct the second respondent to release the goods to the petitioner detained in GD No. 1/2003-04 Group II Enforcement/Central dated 9.4.2003 (detention order). 3. The petitioner in these writ petitions is the manufacturer of Jumbo bags by using plastic granules as a raw material and is a recognised Export House. The petitioner is also a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »