Chennai Court December 2007 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kamy Software Solutions (P) Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Mad)403

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeal is against the order of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 1235/Mds/2002 & 101/Mds/2006. The relevant assessment year is 1997-1998. 2. The assessee (respondent-Company) is dealing in software export technical services related to software. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHE of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in connection with the services rendered for the development of software abroad. During the course of assessment proceedings, in order to verify the claim of the assessee in regard to deduction under Section 80HHE of the Act, a survey under Section 133A of the Act was carried out in the business premises of the assessee on 29.9.1998. During the course of survey operations, the assessing officer found several agreement in regard to job placement and obtained copies of the documents. 3. The assessing officer, on the basis of the agreement, came to the conclusion that the assessee was not engaged in the business of ...

N. Ayyasamy Vs. S.K. Chinnasamy

Court: Chennai

Reported in: IV(2008)BC645

K. Mohanram, J.1. The petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 406 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Erode. During the course of the examination of P.W. 1, the complainant, the accused/petitioner herein filed Crl.M.P. No. 6350 of 2007 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send the cheque in question along with admitted signature of the accused to the expert for comparison and opinion regarding the genuineness of the signature found in the cheque. The case was taken on file on 22.8.2006 and pending for defence from 22.12.2006 till 23.10.2007 and the accused took time stating that he is going to settle the matter but he did not settle the matter and sought for further time which was opposed by the complainant and at that stage the present petition has been filed. It is contended by the complainant that the accused has not taken such a plea in his reply notice. In the reply notice, the accused...

Vincent Lourdhenathan Dominique and LenIn Anand @ Paquinadane Dominiqu ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(1)CTC308; (2008)2MLJ16

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicheery dated 27.11.2006 passed in O.S. No. 334 of 2000, rejecting the documents filed by the revision petitioners.2. The defendants in the suit are the revision petitioners. The respondent has filed the suit in O.S. No. 334 of 2000 for partition and division of 1/3rd share in the suit property apart from recovery of an amount of Rs. 8,000/- towards past mesne profits and also for permanent injunction against the defendants from causing any waste and damage to the properties.3. The suit is laid on the basis that the father and mother of the plaintiff owned 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties comprising of houses, shops and vacant sites and they died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as their legal heirs. According to the plaintiff, the defendants have attempted to partition the properties by allotting a small item of property of less value described in 'A...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Carborandum Universal Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Mad)376

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The relevant assessment year is 1991-1992. 2. The assessee (respondent) is a Company in which the public are substantially interested. The respondent-Company is manufacturing and selling abrasives, refractors, grinding wheels, etc. In respect of assessment year 1991-1992, the assessee filed return and claimed deduction under Section 35AB of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') being 1/5 of the technical know-how fee and depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on the technical know-how by including it in the cost of plant. 3. The depreciation was disallowed by the assessing officer on the opinion that it would amount to double deduction and the assessee is not entitled to double deduction.4. Consequent to that order, penal proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated and penalty was levied, as the assessee had made excess claim, giving inaccurate particulars in order to evade tax.5. Aggrieved by the order of the imposition ...

Tmt. Pugal Samson Vs. the Principal, Nesamony Memorial Christian Colle ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)1MLJ295

ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash the order dated 18.08.2001 and consequently direct the third respondent to grant family pension to the petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased pensioner.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the widow of C.M. Samson, who is a retired Selection Grade Lecturer in the first respondent Aided College. Petitioner's husband joined in the service of the Scott Christian High School, Nagercoil, on 23.10.1953 and later on, he was appointed as Lecturer in the English Department in Scott Christian College, Nagercoil, on temporary basis from 26.09.1956 to 16.03.1957 and he was transferred to the 1st respondent College of the same management in the year 1966 and then he was promoted as Selection Grade Lecturer in English and he retired in the year 1991, after having total service of 25 years i.e., from 24.10.1966 to 28.02.1991.3. Petitioner states that her marriage took place with the said C.M. Samson ...

Rebalakshmi Raj, “pallavi Illam” Madurai Vs. the Manager, Ic ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J.{Open Court} The complainant in OP No.285/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai, is the appellant herein. Her case before the District Forum was as follows :- She availed a vehicle loan under hire purchase facility in a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- in 2002 from the opposite party. As per the terms of the hire purchase agreement she was to repay the amount due to the opposite party in sixty equated monthly instalments. She issued 60 post-dated cheques for the said purpose. Out of the sixty post-dated cheques, 6 instalment cheques were honoured and thereafter she offered to foreclose the loan and paid a sum of Rs.1,66,331/- by way of cash. The Opposite party, on such repayment, ought to have handed back the unused 54 cheques and no objection certificate pertaining to the cancellation of the hypothecation endorsement in the RC book to the complainant immediately. The opposite party not only failed to hand over the unused cheques and the no-objec...

Kala Vs. the Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition and Excise De ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(1)CTC737

ORDERR. Regupathi, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 18.05.2007, whereby, her husband by name Sekar @ City Sekar has been detained as 'Drug Offender' as contemplated under 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).2. It is seen from the grounds on which the detention order came to be passed that on 18.04.2007 at 07.00 Hours, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to D-1 Triplicane Police Station, on receipt of information though informants to the effect that the detenu was selling Ganja at Victoria Hostel Road by sitting in front of Kasturibai Gandhi Government Hospital for Women and Children at Triplicane, proceeded to the spot and reached there at 08.00 Hrs. along with police team. He found the detenu keeping a palatine bag and surrounded by four persons. On seeing t...

D. Rathinam Vs. the Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)2MLJ530

ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the orders passed by the first respondent in his letter No. 30248/LA I(1)2005-5 dated 22.11.2005, and consequently direct the respondents to re-convey the properties bearing Survey S. No. 50/1 Ac.0.54 of Nolambur Village, Thiruvallur District, to the petitioner after receiving the compensation amount with such interest as is legally permissible and put the petitioner in legal possession of the properties.2. The affidavit in support of the petition along with the grounds and the counter affidavit are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 3 and 4 and also the learned Additional Government pleader for the respondents 1 and 2.3. The following facts would emerge as facts admitted:(a) Pursuant to the approval of acquisition by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O....

Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)18VST394(Mad)

ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the respondent dated 21.04.2004, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in India Carbon's case reported in 106 STC 460 and for further orders.2. Brief facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows:The petitioner is a registered dealer dealing with Lifts and Lifts components and assessee on the files of the respondent. During assessment year 2002-03, the petitioner opted for payment of tax on Works contract at compounded rates under Section 7(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short 'the TNGST Act') and remitted the same, vide monthly returns. However, in respect of petitioner's liability to pay Additional Sales Tax, only at the end of the year they found that their taxable turnover was exigible to the levy of Additional Sales Tax and immediately remitted the same on 17.04.2003, while filing monthly returns for the above said assessment year.3. The petitioner has submitted that...