Chennai Court February 2007 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax - I Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Mad)187; [2008]297ITR107(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. T.C. Nos. 173 and 174 of 2003 are relating to 1991-92 assessment period. The substantial questions of law formulated for consideration are as follows:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that excise duty will form part of the total turnover for the purpose of calculation of Section 80HHC?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that scrap sales should not be included in the total turnover for the purpose of calculation of deduction under Section 80 HHC?3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right that the recovery of rent made from salaries to managerial personnel, lease rentals, other income and service charges should be included as business profits but excluded from total turnover?4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is eligible for benefit of depreciation on...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Excello Foundations (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2007
Reported in: LC(2007)(3)269
1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-m, Chennai in ITA Nos. 173 and 174/2006-07 dt. 4th Oct., 2006. The assessments were framed by the Asstt. CIT, Company Circle 1(1), Chennai for the asst. yrs. 2003-04 and 2004-05 vide his both orders dt. 27th March, 2006 under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"). Since the issue is found to be common, both the appeals were elaborately heard together and for the sake of convenience and brevity, a consolidated order is passed.2. The only issue in these two appeals of the assessee is whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB(10) or not in the given facts and circumstances.3. During the course of hearing, the Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted before the Bench that the assessee is not pressing the first ground of the appeal regarding issuance of notice under Section 143(2) and hence, he is withdrawing this ground. The learned Depar...
Tag this Judgment!Ponmani Jesai and M. Selvaraj Vs. Valliammai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2007
Reported in: II(2007)BC446
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment in C.C. Nos. 8888/1998 and 8889/1998 respectively. The complainant in the private complaint is the appellant herein. Crl.A. No. 170 of 2000:2. The short facts of the private complaint preferred by the complainant Ponmani Jesai in C.C. No. 8888 of 1998 relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal, are as follows:The accused Valliammai gave a cheque for Rs. 3,50,000/- dated 17.9.1998 to the complainant in lieu of the amount due under hand loan. When the said cheque was presented in the Canara Bank,Mandaiveli Branch, the said cheque was returned with an endorsement that there is no sufficient funds in the drawer's account. The complainant issued a notice on 23.9.1998. The said notice was received by the accused on 5.10.1998. But the accused neither sent any reply nor chosen to discharge any amount towards discharge of the debt. Hence the private complaint.3. The complaint was taken on file by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Janab Dr. HisamuddIn Papa Saheb, Janab Khadeer Ahmed Sahib, Janab Amee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ1069
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in CMP. No. 2188 of 2003 in O.S. No. 63 of 1940.2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:One Fazilathunia Begum Sahiba D/o. Nawab Walaja on 30.1.1877 through a Will appointed her full brothers' sons namely 1) Mohammed Ameenkhen Hussain Khan bahadur 2) Khader Ali Khan Bahadur 3) Ghulam Hassan Ali Miyan 4) Ghulam Auzam Ali Miyan 5) Ghulam Jeelani Miyan and her own servants namley 6) Mohammed Namdar and 7) Mer Hussain Ali Khan Bahadur as Muthavallis of the Trust and dedicated the lands mentioned thereunder, with the endowments of doing Fathkha Ceremonies during ten days of holding Mohamrram viz., (1) the Fathikha Ceremony (2) The Fathkha of Huzuruth Imam Hussain, the Martiyur of Kerbala and on 11th day of Safar (3) The Fathkha of Founder's deceased Mother Dowlathunnisa Begum and on 19th day of the month Zee Hajja and (4) The Fathikha of the Fou...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Ambika Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST697(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner is a sugar mill. It has availed deferral as per G.O. Ms. No. 989 (Industries) dated September 1, 1998 for a period of four years from March 1, 1989 to March 31, 2003. The capacity of the mill is 2500 tonnes of cane crushing per day. As per the G.O., newly established sugar mills are eligible for deferral of tax on last purchase of sugarcane payable for a period of four years and the ceiling limit for a year is Rs. 125 lakhs and Rs. 440 lakhs for four years. The petitioner availed Rs. 12,97,96,529 up to 2002-03 with an excess availment of Rs. 8,57,96,529 than the ceiling amount of Rs. 440 lakhs. Notices were issued to the petitioner on February 24, 2003 and February 28, 2003 informing the petitioner to pay the excess availed amount. Notice dated February 28, 2003 is challenged in O.P. No. 303 of 2003 before the Tribunal. The petitioner also filed another O.P. No. 304 of 2003 praying to declare that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit o...
Tag this Judgment!Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally and ors. Vs. Olympic Industries Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC111; (2007)5MLJ388
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Rent Control Authorities allowing the Application filed under Rule 12(2) and 28(7) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Rules r/w Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C to receive Additional Counter Statement. 2.1. Brief facts necessitated for the disposal of this Revision Petition are as follows:The Respondent became Tenant under the Petitioners in respect of a portion of the premises bearing Door No. 37, West Mada Church Street, Royapuram, Chennai-13 for non-residential purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/-. Seeking fixation of fair rent of Rs. 10,177/-, the Petitioners / Landlords filed R.C.O.P. No. 2593 of 1994 on the file of XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. Fair rent was sought for on the calculation of cost of construction of Madras Terraced Building (960 sq.ft) and Zinc Roofed Building (390 sq.ft) and market value of land. 2.2. Denying allegations in the Petition, the Respondent / Tenant ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Venkateswara Oxygen (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST528(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Writ Petition No. 5383 of 2007 has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in CST. 641959/2003-04 and quash the order dated November 8, 2006 passed therein.2. The Writ Petition No. 5384 of 2007 has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in TNGST. No. 2023076/04-05 and quash the order dated November 8, 2006 and direct the respondent herein to follow the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)(Main) Coimbatore in A.P. No. 205/05 dated October 27, 2006 and AP. CST. No. 48/2005 dated October 27, 2006 passed in the petitioner's own case for the previous assessment year in so far as the issue relating to assessment under Section 12A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is concerned.3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:The petitioner is a dealer in industrial gas and a registered dealer on the file of the respondent. Origin...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Union Company Motors Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR542(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The above appeal is by the Revenue relating to the Assessment Year 1989-90.2. The issue raised herein relates to the rectification of assessment under Section 143(1)(a). It is seen that the assessing authority went in for rectification of the assessment under Section 154 in respect of sale consideration of land and building not credited to the profit and loss but directly taken to the General Reserve Account, apart from provisions for bad and doubtful debts, provision for depreciation and investments and provision for sales tax, considered for the purposes of applying the provisions of Section 115J. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal, taking the view that the issues involved were debatable issues which could not be the subject matter of the adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, consequently, not amenable to Section 154 of the Act also. On the question of the assessee directly crediting the sale proceeds to the Gener...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sundaram Finance Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR540(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The above appeal is by the Revenue, relating to the Assessment Year 1993-94. The two questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that where the assessment was under Section 115J for the earlier year, the assessee is entitled to excess depreciation?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for a prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1)(a), the assessing officer cannot look at the earlier year's returns?2. This is related to granting of excess depreciation while computing the income as per provisions of Section 115J. The assessing authority originally accepted the return under Section 143(1)(a) without any prima facie adjustment in the intimation and granted the depreciation as claimed by the assessee. Considering the apparent mistake on the question of granting excess depreciation, the As...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: [2007]293ITR487(Mad)
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. The appeals are filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The following substantial question of law is raised in these appeals:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income of the assessee bank is assessable at the rate of 55% as against 60%? 2. The assessee is a banking company. The Commissioner, invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, assessed the Bank at the rate of 60% on the ground that the assessee company is an investment company, mainly earning interest from securities, which was to be taxed as income from other sources. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. By order dated 17.2.2003, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in : [2002]255ITR423(SC) (CIT v. Ramanathapuram District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd.) that in the case of banking business, interest on securities, dividend etc., would be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »