Chennai Court February 2007 Judgments
S.V. Shankar Vs. Settlement Commission (it and Wt) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: [2007]292ITR633(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The petitioner seeks the issue of a certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 5-8-2002, passed by the first respondent herein, namely, the Settlement Commission, and to direct the first respondent to rehear the case after considering the evidence and materials.2. The petitioner herein filed an income-tax settlement application for settlement of his liability relating to the assessment years 1988-89 to 1994-95. By order dated 5-9-2002, the first respondent passed an order and determined the estimated income. The Commission noted that the basic problem in the case was in estimating the net profit income. Since the seized documents did not relate to all the years for consideration, the Commission adopted an average of two rates of profit as disclosed in the seized records of Lakshmi Agency and Kumaran Agency. It fixed the percentage at 0.75 per cent, of the turnover relating to the assessment years 1990-91 to 1993-94 and allocated to different assessment y...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR601(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 70 to 74/Mds/2002, dated February 28, 2006, raising the following common substantial question of law:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in excluding additional discount charges from the chargeable interest under the Interest-tax Act, 1974?2. The assessee, a non-banking finance company, excluded additional discount charges from chargeable interest for all the assessment years, but the Assessing Officer added the same as chargeable interest under Section 2(7) of the Interest-tax Act.3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), on appeal, held that the additional discount charges are not chargeable interest under the Interest-tax Act. The Appellate Tribunal, on appeal, confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal raising the substantial question of law referred supra.4. To d...
Tag this Judgment!Kanyakumari District Central Cooperative Bank Represented by Its Speci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC427; (2007)3MLJ177
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellant is a Cooperative Society. The challenge is to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.8.2002 passed in W.P. No. 9961 of 1996. Respondents 1 to 4 challenged the order of termination dated 25.6.1996. The said order merely reads as under:Appointment orders under reference No. 2 are hereby cancelled as per the advice of the Registrar under reference No. 1.2. When the challenge was made in the writ petition on behalf of the appellant as well as the fifth and sixth respondents herein, the stand taken was that respondents 1 to 4 were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and therefore the appellant was directed to remove the respondents 1 to 4. It is in the above said background, respondents 1 to 4 who claimed to be appointed in March 1996 came to be removed from service on 25.6.1996. It is also relevant to note that respondents 1 to 4 were appointed as Supervisors on temporary basis in the year 1973 and were ousted from service for want of...
Tag this Judgment!Tvs Motor Company Ltd., (Formerly Known as Tvs Suzuki Ltd.), Rep. by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Mad)334; [2007]293ITR394(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in P.A. No. /G.I.R. No. 32024 on the file of the respondent and quash the order dated 27.3.2003 and consequently direct the respondent to drop the proceedings.2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as under: 2.1. The petitioner is a public limited company. For the assessment year 1995-96, the assessing officer had set off the unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance carried forward while computing the relief under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961. With regard to that, an appeal was pending before the Appellate Tribunal. 2.2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner opted to avail the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and ultimately, paid the amount determined by the department. However, the assessing officer issued notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act to reopen the assessment and ultimately, withdrew the relief granted under Section 80HH of the...
Tag this Judgment!Padi Juma Mosque by Its Secretary Vs. Secretary to Government of Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ1111
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. The Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the first Respondent dated 18.04.2001 and direct the second Respondent to register Document No.420/2000 on payment of stamp duty of Rs. 100/-.2. One Khadir Shah Rowther made a gift of his property bearing S.No.1154/28, to an extent of 11 cents in Korattur Village in favour of Padi Juma Mosque. Claiming that he is entitled to the Stamp duty concession as laid down in Government Order G.O.Ms.903 dated 04.09.1986, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, the document in question has been engrossed on stamp duty of Rs. 100/-, assessing value of the property to the nominal value of Rs. 100/-. According to the Petitioner, gift is in favour of a Mosque and is charitable and religious in nature without any reservation and hence, the document is covered under G.O.Ms.903. Petitioner's request for grant of concessional levy of stamp duty, ordered in G.O.Ms.903 was declined, which ...
Tag this Judgment!Greaves Ltd. Vs. V.S. Raghavan and Vijayaraghavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC262; (2007)4MLJ229
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Aggrieved by fixation of fair rent at Rs. 59,590/-, Tenant has preferred these revisions. The demised premises is situated at No. 13, II Line Beach Road, Madras.2. For convenience, parties are referred in their original rank in RCOP.3. Revision Petitioner, a registered Company, has become Tenant in respect of the entire premises consisting of ground floor and first and second floors with a total plinth area of about 11,287 sq. ft. on a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/-. The premises was being used for non-residential purpose. Stating that the premises is situated in prime commercial locality, landlords filed Petition under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, [in short, the Act], for fixation of fair rent at Rs. 65,400/- [ Rs. 5.79 per sq. ft.].4. The Respondent/Tenant resisted that application contending that the premises is over 100 years old and the Respondent had to spend considerable amount year after year for maintenance and...
Tag this Judgment!Chevro Leather Manufacturers Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (Addl.) and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST974(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner filed original petition before the Tribunal praying to call for the records of the first respondent to examine the returns filed by the petitioner, grant a real and effective opportunity to produce the records to prove the correctness and completeness of the returns filed and thereafter call for the objections and pass assessment order taking into consideration the circular of the second respondent in circular dated October 8, 2001 in Lr. Acts. Cell I/20470/01 in light of the order of the apex court in C.A. No. 3956 of 1999 Beardsell Insulations Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu decided on August 30, 2001--Supreme Court. That original petition stands numbered as this writ petition on being transferred to the file of this Court.2. The brief facts of the case, as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the original petition is that the petitioner was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the...
Tag this Judgment!Chevro Leather Manufacturers Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST878(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records of the respondent in TNGST 0540251/2000-2001, set aside the impugned order dated February 17, 2003 and further direct the respondent to examine the returns filed by the petitioner, grant a real and effective opportunity to produce the records to prove the correctness and completeness of the returns filed and thereafter call for the objections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of leather goods and a dealer registered with the respondent. They have reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 18,32,070 and Rs. 1,62,435 respectively for the Assessment Year 2000-01 under the TNGST Act. When the matter was taken up for framing assessment, the petitioner was called upon to produce the books of account. The petitioner was not in a position to produce the books of account in spite of repeated requ...
Tag this Judgment!Gea Energy System India Ltd. Vs. Germanischer Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: [2009]149CompCas689(Mad)
M. Jeyapaul, J.1. The application is filed seeking an order of interim 1 injunction restraining the respondents and their affiliates, subsidiaries, associates, agents, men or any person claiming under them in any way establishing any firm or company in India to carry on any business set out in the joint venture agreement dated April 23, 1997 and representing before the clients, customers, banks, employees, general public, Government authorities acting upon the alleged termination notice dated December 20, 2006, pending disposal of the arbitration.2. The averments, in brief, found in the application are as follows:The power of attorney Mr. R. Ramesh Kumar representing applicants Nos. 1 and 2 is the president-corporate secretary of the first applicant. The applicants and Germanischer Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft, a company organised under the laws of Federal Republic of Germany have entered into a joint venture agreement dated April 23, 1997, at Chennai for the purpose of incorporation of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax-iii Vs. Sharon Vaneers P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Mad)215; [2007]294ITR18(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 641/Mds/2002 dated 30.5.2003, raising the following substantial questions of law.1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the set off of the unabsorbed business losses, unabsorbed depreciation, etc. while determination of business profits under Section 80HHC2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 80AB cannot be applied while determining the business profits under Section 80HHC2. At the outset, we find that 1st question of law is not happily worded and we reframe the same as under:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation, unabsorbed business loss and unabsorbed investment allowance of the earlier years cannot be deducted before granting deduction under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »