Chennai Court February 2007 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. City Union Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Mad)113; [2007]291ITR144(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals were admitted on the following questions of law:T.C.(A) No. 22 of 20041. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in the case of the assessee bank interest on securities has to be assessed only on the basis of the interest due on the half-yearly due dates and the interest accrued as at the end of the assessment year is not be taken2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim of bad debts in relation to non-rural branches of the assessee bank is allowable without first setting off against the provision already allowed under Section 36(1)(viia) when no distinction is made between advances relating to non-rural and rural advances has been made in Section 36(1)(vii)?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reduction of Rs. 47,38,984/- claimed by the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. the Manager, State Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(0)PTC0(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the Revenue, questioning the order of the Tribunal, that the Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the clearance from the Committee on Dispute was mandatory for entertaining the appeal. The Revenue has also questioned the correctness of the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal without going into the merits of the case.2. It is seen that the assessee Bank is a Government of India Undertaking. The assessing authority levied penalty for the failure to file the annual T.D.S. Return. Against that order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accepting the reasons given by the assessee, the Commissioner deleted the penalty and allowed the assessee's appeal. An appeal was preferred before the Tribunal by the Revenue in respect of the Assessment Year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 as against the order of the Commissioner, deleting the penalty under Section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 3. In t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Balika Finance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Mad)255; [2008]299ITR421(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal is by the Revenue on the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest on the borrowed money utilised for the investment in shares cannot be set off against the dividend income under Section 80M of the Income Tax Act?(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in granting investment allowance when it was never claimed at any earlier stage?2. The assessee is a non banking finance company. In respect of the assessment year 1992-93, it declared a net income of Rs. 22,89,090/-.3. In the assessment for the assessment year 1992-93, the assessing authority worked out the relief under Section 80-M of the Act by making pro-rata allocation of the interest liability to funds invested in shares; thereby reduced the net dividend income available for deduction under Section 80-M of the Act.4. The assessing officer viewed that t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Superstar Music and Superstar Exports
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Mad)128; [2007]291ITR8(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25.11.2005 made in ITA.Nos. 126 and 127/Mds/2002 for the assessment year 1999-2000, raising the following common substantial questions of law:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating the export of audio software as deduction under Section 80HHC for the assessment year 1999-2000, when the relief for the same is available under Section 80HHF only from the assessment year 2000-01'; and2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the export of music software can be equated with export of goods for the purpose of Section 80HHC'2.1. Brief facts of the case are: The assessees are companies engaged in the business of export of music software and the assessees claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act (for brevity, 'the Act'). The Assessing Officer disallowed the claims of the deduction under Section 80HH...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chemicals and Plastics India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: [2007]292ITR115(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The following two questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal preferred by the Revenue, relating to the assessment year 1988-89:(i) Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs paid towards the construction of building of the Madras Chamber of Commerce is allowable as a business expenditure?(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the premium payable on redemption of debentures in future years is to be spread over and part of it allowed as a deduction in this year?2. The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1988-89 claiming deduction to the tune of a sum of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs being contribution to the Madras Chamber of Commerce as business expenditure, it being a member. The assessee contended that the maintenance of the Trade Chamber was for the furtherance of the business interest of the constituents of the ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Commissioner and Secretary to Gov ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC513
P.K. Misra, J.1. O.S.A. No. 193 of 2002 has been filed by the Defendant State challenging the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge directing payment of Rs. 1,02,21,371.67 with interest, whereas O.S.A. No. 178 of 2003 has been filed by the plaintiff claiming higher amount.2. The background facts as culled out from documents are as follows: Admittedly Sri Vanamamalai Jeer Math of Nanguneri village is the owner of vast extent of forest lands. Out of the said lands, an area of 180.36 acres of forest land had been leased in favour of the plaintiff for a period of 5 years with effect from 1.7.1972 as per Ex.P-2. At that stage, vide G.O.Ms. No. 183, Forest & Fisheries Department dated 6.3.1976 (Ex.P-4) the State Government approved the proposal of the Chief Conservator of Forests to notify Kalkakadu Reserve Forest as sanctuary for wild life and accordingly a notification under Section 18(1) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) was issued decla...
Tag this Judgment!Sivakama Sundari Ravi Vs. State by Inspector of Police and Ravi Viswan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: I(2007)DMC682
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. Mr. S.Y. Masood, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking the relief of a direction to the first respondent police to register a case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 30.08.2006. 2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Post-Graduate and was working as apprentice in the Annamalai University for a year. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner got married with one Ravi Viswanathan on 03.02.2002 at Hotel Kanchi, Chennai, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is submitted that the petitioner was given 25 sovereign of gold, a pair of diamond ear rings and 3 kgs. of silver and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing house hold utensils. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- also paid as dowry to the bridegroom. 3. The learned Counsel for the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Chairman Vs. Aries and Aries ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ1057
P.K. Misra, J.1. This appeal is filed by the defendant against the judgment of the learned single Judge in C.S. No. 130 of 1987, decreeing in part the claims made by the plaintiff. 2. The admitted facts are as follows:The defendant / appellant called for tenders for the construction of eight blocks of 8F (LIG) type quarters and nine blocks of 16G (EWS) type quarters at Ennore Thermal Power Station. The cost of one block of 8F type was Rs. 2,90,264.30 and the total cost of eight blocks was calculated as Rs. 23,22,114.40 and the cost of nine blocks of 16G quarters was calculated as Rs. 40,57,765.65 at the rate of Rs. 4,50,862.85 per block. Total estimated value of the contract was thus Rs. 63,79,880.05. The plaintiff submitted its tender quoting Rs. 21,66,880/- for 'F' type quarters and Rs. 38,37,204/- for 16G type quarters and with a rebate of 3%, if both the works were given. Subsequently, in reply to the letter dated 7.5.1976, issued by the Superintending Engineer, the plaintiff gave ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mani Vs. the Secretary to Government, Health and Famiy Welfare Depa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ34
ORDERK. Chandru, J. 1. The petitioner, a serving Head Constable belonging to the Uniformed Services of the State of Tamil Nadu and attached to the Katchampatty Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District, has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order dated 07.12.2005 passed by the second respondent in rejecting his request for availing assistance under the Tamil Nadu Government Employees' Health Fund Scheme for having undergone an Angioplasty in an approved private Hospital.2. The petitioner, having joined the service in the Vellore Armed Reserve on 15.9.1980, got transferred to law and order in the year 1989. He was promoted as Grade - I Constable in the year 1995 and got further promoted as Head Constable in the year 2000. When he was working in the Police Station at Eraiyur, on 10.11.2002, all of a sudden, he developed cardiac problem while he was on duty and he was rushed to the Government Hospital, Thirupattur, for first aid treatment and as per the advise of the...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Corporation (Agencies) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: [2007]293ITR237(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The present appeals are directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'B' Bench dated 25.11.2005 made in I.T.A.Nos. 692/Mds/2000 and 885/Mds/2000 for the assessment year 1994-95, raising the following common substantial questions of law:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition on account of receivable interest on amounts advanced to the subsidiary company M/s.Pearl Ships Ltd., without interest?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of incentives to Dock Labour Board workers had to be allowed as a deduction?3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that inclusion of interest from Sundaram Industries for the amounts advanced by the assessee had to be deleted?4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the 20% of the value ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »