Chennai Court February 2007 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mrs. C. Malathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Mad)173
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The appeal by the Revenue raises the following question of law viz:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the time-limit prescribed for issue of a notice under Section 143(2) in respect of a return filed under Section 139 of the Income-tax Act or a return filed in pursuance to a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act will apply to a return filed in response to a notice under Section 148 of the Act2. The appeal relates to the Assessment Year 1996-97. It is seen that the assessee filed her return of income on 16th July 1998. It is seen that pursuant to the notice under Section 148, the assessee filed the return of income on 16th July 1998. The original assessment under Section 143(3) in respect of the assessee's husband was completed on 31.3.1999. It was noticed during the course of assessment proceedings that the applicant and her husband had jointly purchased a property on 26.10.19...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Modern Eng. Constructions Co-operative ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: [2008]306ITR8(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated February 2, 2006 in I.T.A. Nos. 1807 to 1812/Mds/2002 for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1998-99.The Revenue is the appellant. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the business of civil construction and repair works. The assessee advanced loans to its members and received interest therefrom. The assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act and the Assessing Officer negatived the claim of the assessee as the primary objective of the assessee is not that of the credit society that is engaged in the business of banking. On appeals, by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), following its earlier orders in the assessee's own case, allowed the appeals. The said order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), on appeals by the Revenue, was confirmed by the Tribunal.2. Exasperated, the Revenue has p...
Tag this Judgment!Vinbros and Company Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2007
Reported in: (2008)110ITD185(Chennai)
1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of CIT(A) dt. 17th Aug., 2006 and pertain to asst. yrs. 2003-04 and 2004-05. Since the issues are related, these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.2. One common issue raised in these appeals pertains to denial of assessee's claim of relief under Section 80-IB. In this case, the assessee is a firm registered as a small-scale industry. It set up a second unit, unit II to manufacture and bottle Indian manufactured [sic-made] foreign liquor at Pondicherry. The assessee made claim under Section 80-IB in respect of the profits and gains derived from the second unit.The first year of assessment for the new unit was the year 2000-01 and the assessee claimed relief under Section 80-IB in respect of the income from the new industrial undertaking. This was allowed by the assessing authority. For the asst. yr. 2001-02, the assessee claimed relief under Section 80-IB. While considering the aforesaid relief in t...
Tag this Judgment!Regina Bai and K.B. Jaya Vs. the Managing of Nafed (Processed Foods) a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2007
Reported in: (2008)ILLJ43Mad
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the award of the second respondent in I.D.No.424 and 425 of 1993 dated 24.12.1997 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to reinstate him in service with backwages and continuity of service and other attendant benefits. 2. The first petitioner herein was the petitioner in I.D.No.424 of 1993 and the second petitioner herein was the petitioner in I.D.No.425 of 1993 preferred before the Labour Court, Vellore seeking reinstatement with full backwages and all other attendant benefits. 3. The Labour Court, having considered the evidence of the first petitioner herein in the background of Exs.WW1 to WW3 produced on the side of the petitioners and Exs.M1 to M20 exhibited on the side of the Management, has passed an award dismissing the claim of the petitioners herein. The Labour Court has observed that the petitioners have...
Tag this Judgment!A.D.R. Plastics Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2007
Reported in: (2008)12VST438(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner filed OP praying to call for the records of the respondent in in TNGST/6230688/2001-2002 dated 25.08.2003 and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and violative of the provisions of the Explanation to Section 12(3) of the TNGST Act, 1959. That OP is converted to this writ petition on being transferred to the file of this Court.2. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the materials available on record.3. The assessment order is an appealable order. The assessee has an equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of appeal to the authority prescribed under Section 31 of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax, and a second appeal to the Tribunal under Section 36 of the Act. 4. The entrustment of the power to assess was not in dispute, and the authority within the limits of his power was a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction. The challenge was only to the regularity of the proceedings before t...
Tag this Judgment!Src Projects (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2007
Reported in: (2009)19VST447(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Asst. No. 2661801/02-03, set aside the impugned proceedings dated September 26, 2003 and further direct the respondent to follow the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as prescribed under Section 7F read with Rule 18F of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 and thereafter take action in accordance with law.2. Mr. Haja Nazirudeen, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), takes notice for the respondents.3. The petitioner put in issue the notice dated September 26, 2003 issued by the first respondent, Commercial Tax Officer, Salem Town (North), requesting the assessee to pay tax, surcharge and resale tax of Rs. 4,85,928 within three days of the receipt of the notice along with interest under Section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.4. It is the case of the petitioner that in r...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Lakshmi Products Rep. by Its Partner Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2007
Reported in: [2007]78SCL257(Mad)
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition for a mandamus for bearing the respondent from evicting the petitioner, from the leasehold premises in its possession except by due process of law. The principal contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner being a tenant and in physical possession of a portion of the building situated in S.F. No. 189/2, Uthupalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District, by virtue of a lease deed dated 5-4-2003, duly executed by the principal borrower and the mortgager of the property M/s. Sree Lakshmi Foundry, is fully protected under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and cannot be dispossessed without taking recourse to the provisions of the said Act. We need not narrate detailed facts, but it is suffice to state that M/s. Sree Lakshmi Foundry, who is the principal borrower had availed of some loans from the respondent-State Bank of India after mortgaging the land and building comprised in S.F. No. 189/2...
Tag this Judgment!Anbumathi Traders and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST829(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The facts on which the present writ petitions have been filed is that the petitioners are dealers and their assessments for respective assessment years were completed originally. There were certain disputes as to the taxability of pulses, which were already taxed, were again taxed when ground into flours. This Court in [1993] 3 MTCR 337 (K.P.R. Rajah and Sons v. Commercial Tax Officer), has ruled that the flours are taxable even though the pulses were already taxed, as there is a separate entry under Sections 80(a) and 80(b) of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 which is corresponding to entry (ii) in Part IIIB of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as amended. It is also accepted that till orders are passed in the above said judgment on March 29, 1993, the department had always been interpreting that if tax has been paid for pulses, no fresh tax need be paid for flour. On that basis, several assessments wer...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Railway License Porters Union Rep. by Its General Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad200; (2007)2MLJ480
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Southern Railway License Porters Union through its General Secretary, Chennai-12, and one A. Parthasarathy, have filed W.A. No. 2581 of 2002, questioning the order of the learned single Judge, dated 14.06.2002, made in W.P. No. 1359 of 1995, in and by which, the learned Judge dismissed the said Petition challenging the tender Notification issued by the Southern Railway calling for applications from interested parties for issuing of Self-help Trollies for the use of passengers, retrieval and maintenance of the same at Madras Central Station for a period of one year.2. The very same Union and one A. Chittirai have filed W.P. No. 35467 of 2002, praying for the issuance of a writ of declaration to declare the action of the respondents in calling for tenders from Agencies to supply and maintain self service trolleys as per their notification published in the Hindu Daily, dated 17.08.2002, as illegal and unconstitutional. They have also filed W.P. No. 35468 of 2002 prayin...
Tag this Judgment!Subramani Vs. Ramasamy and Sengoda Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC429; (2007)3MLJ22
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the order of dismissal of Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Application filed to set aside the abatement due to death of the First Defendant and the Application to bring on Legal Representatives of the Deceased First Defendant as parties to the Application. 2.1. Relevant facts necessitated for disposal of these Revision Petitions are as follows:- Defendants are alleged to have entered into a Sale Agreement with the Plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit properties. Plaintiff has obtained an exparte decree for specific performance in O.S. No. 117 of 1997 on 24.12.1998. For Execution of the Decree, E.P. No. 21 of 1999 was filed before Sub-Court, Sankari, which was later transferred to Sub-Court, Namakkal and renumbered as E.P. No. 259 of 2002. 2.2. After receipt of Notice in the Execution Petition, Defendants filed I.A. No. 1441 of 2002 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (for short 'the Act...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »