Chennai Court November 2007 Judgments
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Prabhu Spg. Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2007
Reported in: (2008)113TTJ(Chennai)372
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 14th Oct., 2005 for the above assessment year. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: (a) The learned CIT(A) has not considered the elaborate reasons given by the AO why the expenses on replacement of machinery should be treated as capital in nature. (b) As per the decision of the apex Court in the case of Ballimal Nawal Kishore and Anr. v. CIT only expenses on current repairs alone can be allowed as revenue expenditure and not expenses on replacement of machinery. (c) In the case of CIT v. Madras Cement Ltd. the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that expenses on replacement of machinery which can function independently is to be treated as capital in nature. (d) The CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Janakiram Mills Ltd. as the decision in Janakiram Mills case (supra) has not reached finality and the Department has filed appeal before the S...
Tag this Judgment!J. Jayalalithaa Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: [2008]300ITR399(Mad)
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above criminal original petition are set out below:(i) The respondent herein preferred a complaint against the petitioner under Section 35B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The said complaint has been taken on the file as E.O.CC. No. 263 of 2007 and the same is pending for trial on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence-I), Egmore, Chennai-600 008. The petitioner filed a discharge application in Crl. M.P. No. 3457 of 2001 under Section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent has also filed its counter-statement and the petitioner herein has also filed a reply statement. It is also seen that the petitioner has filed additional grounds in Crl. M.P. No. 3457 of 2001.2. According to the petitioner, the said criminal miscellaneous petition was posted for enquiry on November 12, 2007, and on that date the petitioner insisted that the petition should be taken up for hear...
Tag this Judgment!Mepco Industries Limited (Successor to Karaikal Chlorates) Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Mad)707
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The writ appeals are filed by against the order of the learned single Judge dated 8.12.2000 made in W.P. Nos. 10663 and 10664 of 1998.2. The appellant herein preferred revision petitions under Section 264 of the I.T. Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax claiming relief that the electricity subsidy received by the appellant from the Government of India in a sum of Rs. 56,16,456 and Rs. 64,56,107/- for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively may be treated as capital receipt. The Commissioner of Income Tax, the first respondent herein granted the relief as sought for by the appellant herein in his order dated 30.4.1997. However subsequent to that a rectification proceedings was sought to be taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax as there was a mistake apparent from the record. In the rectification proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. and Ors. ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Senthilkumar Vs. Seven Seas Shipping Services by Its Proprietor, Su ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1186
ORDERR. Regupathi, J.1. The petitioner herein, who is the sole accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in S.T.C. No. 2457 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Tirupur, seeks to quash the aforesaid proceedings pending against him.2. The following points have been agitated by the learned Counsel for the appellant for the purpose of quashing the proceedings,(a) The complaint has been initiated through Power Agent and for such purpose, a power of attorney document has been relied upon. The complainant/company is situated at Mumbai and the document was prepared at Mumbai. The last paragraph of the power of attorney is to the following effect:In witness, I Surendranath K.G. Pillai do hereby subscribed this power of attorney on this 15th day of June 2005 at Mumbai. signed sealed and delivered by me.That being so, the document has been endorsed by an Advocate & Notary at Tirupur on 18.06.2005, which would only suggest that the power of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR166(Madras); (2008)2MLJ27
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 26.9.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 188 of 2002 setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 21.9.2001 non-suiting the first respondent for the claim made before him in the arbitration proceedings and granted a sum of Rs. 25,87,500/- in respect of the first contract and Rs. 27,46,990/- in respect of the second contract without interest.2. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge has miserably erred in granting the relief as claimed by the first respondent while setting aside the award, which is beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 34 empowers the Court only to set aside the award on the stated contingencies. It never granted any power to the Court to pass an award treating the Court as an arbitrator.3. However, Mr. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first r...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mangal Tirth Estates Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Mad)253
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. These tax case appeal are preferred by the Revenue. Tax Case (Appeal) No. 3 of 2004 relates to the asst. yr. 1992-93; Tax Case (Appeal) No. 626 of 2004 relates to the asst. yr. 1993-94; Tax Case (Appeal) No. 904 of 2004 relates to the asst. yr. 1994-95 and Tax Case (Appeal) No. 2432 of 2006, relates to the asst. yr. 1996-97.2. The issues raised in these tax cases are one and the same except the question relating to the deductibility of the entire expenditure incurred under completed contract method of accounting. The following are questions of law raised in these tax case appeals:Tax Case (Appeal) No. 3 of 2004:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amenities charges paid for central air conditioning of the shops sold should be treated only as an advance and not as a trading receipt?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the receipt for allotment o...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Distributors Vs. the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST375(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The writ petition is filed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal dismissing the original petitions filed by the petitioner challenging the condition prescribed under Entry 7 of Part E of the First Schedule of the TNGST Act, 1959 to the effect that all tooth pastes whether or not medicated or as defined under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, is liable to the rate of 12%, is illegal and consequently, the exclusion of the products capable of being used as tooth pastes which is otherwise a medical formulation or preparation ready for use externally for treatment of mitigation or prevention of diseases or disorders in human beings or animals which is otherwise liable to tax at 5% under Entry 20A of Part C of the I Schedule of the Act, is ultra vires of Article 14 read with Article 19(1)(g), Article 21 and Article 301-A of the Constitution of India. 2. The Tribunal dismissed the original petition under order dated 12.9.2001 rejecting the pl...
Tag this Judgment!N. Seetharaman Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2007
Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Mad)238; [2008]298ITR210(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner has filed present Writ Petition to quash the File No. S-7028/Cir.II/Mdu for the Block Assessment years 1989-90 to 1999-2000 and consequently direct the respondent to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to confine himself to the order under Section 264 of the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Madurai.2. Brief facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows:The petitioner is carrying on a small-scale business in making Gold jewellary out of old ornaments and the same is being sold in Trivandram. The making charges in the State of Kerala are comparatively higher than Madurai. His sons are also doing the same business and help him in his trade. They are assessed to income tax separately in Madurai. The petitioner is an assessee from the assessment year 1993-94 and presently assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-II,. Madurai. On 18.11.1998, when7 the petitioner was staying in a lodge in Trivandram, the loca...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Marudhupandiyar Transport Corporation Rep. by Its Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR344]; (2008)ILLJ428Mad
M. Venugopal, J.1. The appellant in the writ appeal, viz., Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation [Kumbakonam Division III] Limited, is the petitioner in the writ petition No. 11080 of 1994. The appellant/State Transport Corporation has filed the writ petition as against the award passed by the first respondent, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai, dated 27.07.1993 in I.D. No. 217 of 1990.2. The second respondent/employee was in the services of the appellant Corporation as Conductor in Aruppukottai Branch and when he was on duty in the bus bearing Registration No. TML-2307, the route being between Aruppukottai and Paraitchi on 21.04.1988 at 5.50 p.m., the Checking Inspector while checking the bus, found that one of the commuters out of 36 was in possession of a ticket numbering ML-16/18649 to the value of Rs. 1.10/- which had no nexus to the concerned trip. On enquiry, the commuter answered that the ticket was given by the second respondent/conductor. The appellant/writ petiti...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, the Scientific Fertiliser Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Presi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1723
M. Venugopal, J.1. Aggrieved against the order dated 7.11.2000 made in W.P. No. 21250 of 1993 the appellant/management has filed the present writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The second respondent/writ petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 21250 of 1993 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sought for the relief of quashing the award passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore dated 3.2.1993 in and by which the second respondent/writ petitioner/employee was held to be not a workman under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947, since the employee worked only as sales representative and that he does not have the right to raise an industrial dispute and that the appellant/management was directed to pay 10 months salary to the second respondent/writ petitioner/employee as ex-gratia, in the circumstance, that the writ petitioner/second respondent in appeal has worked only for one year from 1.10.1986 to 30.9.1987.3. The learned single Judge has allowed the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »