Chennai Court February 2007 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiva Distilleries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: [2007]293ITR108(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. 1430/Mds/ 2003, dated 13.1.2006, raising the following substantial questions of law.1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in law in allowing the expenditure on replacement of machinery as revenue expenditure and not capital?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that the scrap and waste materials generated during the course of manufacture, royalty received and the guarantee commission for the purpose of calculation of 80HHC deduction would have to be excluded from business profit for the purpose of calculation of deduction under 80HHC?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that excise duty and sales tax are to be included in the turnover while calculating 80HHC ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Palanivel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: [2007]291ITR33(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal made in IT(SS)A No. 78/Mds/2002, dated 8.9.2006.2. The brief facts are: A search was conducted by the Revenue officials under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the residence and in the office premises of the assessee on 15.7.99 and based on the materials found during the search, a block assessment was framed for the block period 1.4.90 and 15.7.99 and an order was passed for the said block period on 19.6.2001 levying a surcharge at 17% on the tax payable on the block assessment. Aggrieved by the said order of block assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who upheld the order of the asseesing officer levying surcharge by order dated 26.2.2002. The Tribunal, on further appeal by the assessee, held that prior to introduction of proviso to Section 113 with effect from 1.6.2002, whereby it was clarified that surcharge as...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppa Gounder, Vs. Soundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad175; (2007)2MLJ783
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants in both the courts below have filed the present appeal.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the respondent. 3. The Respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.416/2003 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Erode, with a prayer for permanent injunction against the defendants/appellants from obliterating or obstructing the plaintiff's/respondent's user of the suit channel to irrigate her field situate in R.S.No.1470/8 of Vadugapatti Village from the well water situate in R.S.Nos.1471/1 and 13 of the said village and also for a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from obstructing the plaintiff's right to take water in the well situate in R.S.No.1470/9 for two days out of every 9 days.4. The defendants have filed the written statement. In the written statement while admitting the existence of the common channel, the defendants would state that the entire channel has extended up t...
Tag this Judgment!K. Loganthan Vs. Rajalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ748
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the revision petitioner/plaintiff challenging the return of the Plaint for payment of court fee under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955. 2. According to the revision petitioner/plaintiff, pursuant to a money decree, a bungalow situated in Court Road, Cuddalore was brought to auction in E.P. No. 21 of 2000 in O.S.No: 790 of 1999. The revision petitioner/plaintiff was the successful bidder and he deposited a sum of Rs. 11,55,000/= into court. The sale was confirmed on 3.12.2003. Nine ordinary judgment debtors shared the consideration deposited into the court. This had happened in the year 2003-2004. Thereafter it came to light that the 11th defendant in the present suit (SR.8695/2006) had filed even in the year 2000 O.S. No. 166 of 1999 against the same judgment debtors. That suit was on a mortgage. The final decree in the suit was also passed on 8.12.2005. Even though the said suit was in...
Tag this Judgment!The District Collector, Vs. Ramalinga Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ761
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 28 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Villupuram. The Defendant in O.S. No. 327/1996 of the file of the Court of District Munsif, Thirukoilur, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 4,125/- and also for an order restraining the defendants and their men from proceeding under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act in pursuance of the orders of the defendants dated 12.4.1985 and 17.5.1985.2. The short facts in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:2(a) The plaintiff was declared as the successful bidder who bid for Rs. 4,250/- per month as rent for the Arrack shop No. 34 at Sentanadu Village, Ulundurpet Taluk on 29.06.1983 for the period from 16.07.1983 to 15.07.1984 and he had paid Rs. 1,000/- as earnest money and also paid Rs. 2,125/- being the half month's rent and also paid Rs. 1000/- t...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadeeswaran Textiles P. Limited Represented by Its Managing Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)8VST195(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Original Petition has been filed before the Tribunal seeking for the relief to call for the records on the file of the respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer, Udumalpet (North Assessment Circle) Udumalpet with reference to his proceedings in Form No. 4 issued under Section 25 of SICA Act (demand prior to attachment of the land) dated 20.3.2003 on the ground that the demand of Rs. 1,33,72,591/- being arrears of Commercial Taxes due for the assessment year 1989-90 to 2001-2002 on both TNGST and CST. 2. The said demand was assailed on the premise that the petitioner's company has become sick and its liability was over and above its net worth of assets and made a reference under Section 15(1) of the SICA Act before the Board of Industrial Financial reconstruction (BIFR) on 7.12.1994 to declare it as a sick industrial company in terms of 3(1)(o) of the SICA Act. The BIFR after hearing the parties by giving so many opportunities and revising proposal after ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Senthilkumar Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ741
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal is filed by the assessee, against the order of the Tribunal seeking admission on the following substantial question of law:Whether the Tribunal was right in law while holding that the sum of Rs. 5.35 lakhs represents undisclosed income of the assessee, even though the same was covered by the declaration filed under the Voluntary Disclosure by assessee's mother? 2. With consent of the parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal.3. This appeal relates to the Block Assessment Years 1988-89 and 1989-90.4. It is stated that based on a search conducted on 03.09.1997, the assessment was completed on estimated basis. The grievance of the assessee is that the only document found at the time of search was an agreement executed by the assessee for purchase of lands at Sadumugai, Sathyamangalam, Gobichettipalayam. The consideration was for Rs. 3.65 lakhs. However, the actual consideration paid was Rs. 9.00 lakhs The assessee stated that the difference ...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: (2007)8VST289(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The issue involved in all the above writ petitions is one and the same and the parties are also one and the same. The argument advanced by the respective parties is also the same. On consent of the parties, the writ petitions are taken up today for disposal together. 2. The facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner, a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking, is a registered dealer with the second respondent herein both under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, (hereinafter, referred to as 'the TNGST Act') and Central Sales Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the CST Act'). The petitioner was originally granted temporary working permission for a period of nine months from 26.9.1997 to 25.6.1998 for mining magnesite and dunite over an extent of 177.96 hectares of forest land in Salem Division subject to certain conditions by G.O.(2D) No. 53, Environment and Forests (FRX) Department dated 23.10.1997. Subsequently, by Government Order in G.O.Ms.NO.234,...
Tag this Judgment!Mars Incorporated Represented by Power of Attorney Agent, Mr. A. Aruls ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: LC2007(1)384; 2007(34)PTC642(Mad)
ORDERED THAT Application No. 503728 shall be treated as withdrawn and the opposition thereto bearing No. 2924 therefore abates.' Plaintiff was also awarded costs of Rs.250.00. 5. It is further stated in the plaint that the word 'MARES' which forms the most prominent and distinctive portion of the defendant's trading style and corporate name is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark and trading style 'MARS'. Defendant is trading in the same goods as those in which the plaintiff's trade mark and trading style 'MARS' has acquired a world wide reputation. The use of the trade mark 'MARES' by the defendant as part of its trading style is likely to cause confusion and deception amongst the trade and the public that the defendant is in some manner connected with the plaintiff. The use of the word 'MARES' by the defendant amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'MARS'. By using 'MARES' as its trading style, the defendant is seeking to pass off its goods as a...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakaran and Shanta Vs. Parish Priest, St. Michael's Church
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC86; (2007)5MLJ1237
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree in A.S. No. 3 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris at Ootacamund. The defendants in O.S. No. 18 of 1986 are the appellants herein. The learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit against which the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 3 of 1996 before the learned Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris at Ootacamund, who has allowed the appeal setting aside the decree and judgment of the learned trial Judge in O.S. No. 18 of 1986. Hence the defendants are before this Court.2. The short facts in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal sans irrelvant particulars are as follows:The defendants are the tenants in respect of the suit property under the plaintiff. The door Number of the suit property is X-11/292,Thoraijada Ketti Panchayat. The tenancy was oral and the monthly rent for the suit premises is Rs. 20/-. The plaintiff issued a suit notice to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »