Chennai Court March 2007 Judgments
Hotel Archana Vs. the Chairman, Tnstat (Mb) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: (2008)18VST46(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first respondent herein in STA. No. 154 of 2000 dated November 30, 2001 and quash the same as illegal and unlawful insofar as the levy of penalty is concerned.2. The petitioners are running a hotel and were finally assessed by the third respondent for the assessment year 1994-95. During the check of the petitioners' account, the assessing officer has found a difference of Rs. 98,031 in the turnover reported and that as per the accounts. The petitioner claimed gross profit at 66 per cent. Apart from that, the assessing officer found that the petitioner has not maintained accounts for the purchase of milk, vegetables, firewood and rice. The assessing officer conducted a survey on May 18, 1994 and determined the turnover on the basis of the sales on that day. He further added 20 per cent amounting to Rs. 3,14,620 towards the probable omission and le...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. William Jenifar Ajitha Alias Jenif ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ1042; (2007)2MLJ1147
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the award granted by the Tribunal dated 17.11.1997. The accident occurred on 16.4.1994 at 9.30 a.m. The deceased was working in the fourth respondent's concern, earning about Rs. 4,000/- every month. The van belonging to the fourth respondent was insured with the appellant herein. There is no denial of the fact that the driver had a valid driving licence. In an application for compensation by the wife and the parents of the deceased, the appellant herein disputed their liability to pay the compensation claimed at Rs. 30,00,000/-, but restricted to Rs. 15,00,000/-.2. A counter affidavit was filed by the fourth respondent, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, who was the first respondent in the M.C.O.P. This respondent had stated that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the appellant herein and that was used primarily for transporting the employees. It was also stated therein that this respondent coul...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Agencies Vs. Commercial Tax Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ656; (2007)10VST123(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. These writ petitions are filed originally as Original Petitions before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal assailing the correctness of the common order made in review applications in MTRA Nos.53 and 54 of 2002 pending appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. After abolition of the Tribunal, the OPs were transferred and numbered as writ petitions and have come up for hearing for orders today.2. The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records relating to the order impugned in MTRA Nos.53 and 54 of 2002 dated 04.04.2003 passed by the fourth respondent Tamil Nadu Taxation Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai and set aside the same and direct the respondent to furnish the xerox copy of D7 records without insisting on the petitioner to produce the accounts. 3. The facts as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is as follows : The petitioner was doing business in the name and style of Vis...
Tag this Judgment!M.G.M. Transports (Madras) (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: [2008]303ITR115(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petition is filed seeking for the relief of issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Coy. W IV (D/AACCM 5458M/500-M/2004-05/Stay relating to the application made by the petitioner for stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the IT Act, 1961, and quash the order dt. 5th March, 2007 rejecting the stay petition and direct the first respondent to pass orders thereon after affording opportunity of hearing and to grant stay of demand relating to the assessment order for the asst. yr. 2004-05, pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent.2. The petitioner is a private limited company and assessee under the IT Act. For the asst. yr. 2004-05, the petitioner filed a return declaring a total loss of Rs. 8,49,603. The petitioner having regard to the provisions of Section 115JB of the IT Act, 1961 declared in the Minimum Alternate Tax payable at Rs. 3,47,829 initially. However, the first re...
Tag this Judgment!Gene Vs. Gabriel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC167
ORDERP. Murgesen, J.1. This revision has been filed by the petitioner/third party against the judgment dated 4.1.2000 made in Cri. M.P. No. 7239 of 2001 in C.C. No. 240 of 1998 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kuzhithurai.2. The petitioner's case briefly is as follows:(i) One Thangaraj filed a petition so as to constitute a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent herein. The respondent herein borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the complainant to be invested in his Prawn business, agreeing to repay the amount within one month and issued a cheque bearing No. 961549 dated 20.7.1998 drawn at State Bank of Travancore, Thengapattanam Branch.(ii) The cheque was presented in the State Bank of India, Kuzhithurai Branch for collection and it was returned on 8.8.1998 as unpaid due to insufficiency of fund in the respondent's Bank account. The respondent has issued the cheque knowing fully well about the insufficiency of funds in his account, a...
Tag this Judgment!The Karur Vysya Bank Limited rep. by the Assistant General Manager (Pe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)2LLJ983Mad; (2007)3MLJ257
P. Sathasivam,J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, dated 17.01.2005, made in W.P.No. 2287 of 2000, the Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Karur, has filed the above appeal.2. The case of the appellant is briefly stated hereunder:It is a Banking Company having its Head office in Karur with Branches throughout the country. It grants various types of loan including jewel loan. In the matter of granting of jewel loan, the borrower tenders gold jewel as security and against the pledge of the jewel, loan is granted. Before granting the loan, in order to verify the genuineness of the gold, the Bank engages the services of Jewel Appraiser, who appraises the value of the jewel and gives certificate. Based on the value of the jewel as assessed by Jewel Appraisers, loan is sanctioned. These Jewel Appraisers are not required to observe any fixed working hours. However, they should make themselves available during the course of business hours. They are paid charges for their services at ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Manickam Vs. the Secretary to Government, Industries Department,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1253
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. These writ appeals are directed against the orders of the learned single Judge dated 25.6.2004 and 15.6.2004 made in W.P.Nos. 3707 of 2001, 5743 of 1999 and 10336 of 1999 respectively, wherein the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein.2. The brief facts necesssary for disposal of the writ appeals are as follows.(a) Appellants were appointed as Assistant Project Engineer (Mechanical), Junior Foreman (Mechanical) and Deputy Manager (Mechanical) respectively in the Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited, the second respondent herein (hereinafter referred as TANMAG), which is a Company fully owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu.(b) The TANMAG invited applications through paper advertisement and called for applications for the respective posts and the appellants applied for the same and they were selected and appointed by orders dated 12.9.1983, 23.11.1988 and 18.8.1989 respectively by the TANMAG and the appellants joined duty in...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Venkatesan and K.T. Srinivasa Raja Vs. the Appropriate Authority ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Mad)373; [2008]298ITR47(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This writ appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge dated 31.10.2002, dismissing the writ petition preferred against the order of the appropriate authority the first respondent herein. The writ appellants herein are the transferees who had entered into an agreement to purchase the property. By order dated 23.5.1999, the first respondent herein, in exercise of its powers of preemptive purchase, under Section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, ordered purchase of a property for a consideration of Rs. 27,60,670/-. 2. It is seen that the transferor C.R. Venkatachalam, petitioner in W.P. No. 9793 of 1999, was the owner of the premises at No. 3, Krishnamachari Avenue, Adyar, Chennai. The transferees are the writ petitioners in W.P. No. 9956 of 1999. The transferor and transferees entered into an agreement to sell and purchase the property for an apparent consideration of Rs. 28 lakhs on 10.2.1999. The parties filed their statement in Form 37-I in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!Aravinda Parimala Works Represented by Its Partner H.S. Rao Vs. the In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Mad)93; [2007]292ITR77(Mad)
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J. 1. The petitioner herein is a firm. For the assessment years 1983-84 to 1987-88, it preferred an application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act before the first respondent herein for settlement of its liability under the Income Tax Act. By order dated 22.3.1993, the first respondent quantified the income and the liability; thus included the interest under Section 139(8), 215/217 and penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Settlement Commission held that for the assessment year 1983-84, no interest was leviable under Section 139(8). As regards the assessment years 1984 85 and 1985-86, interest would be charged as due and for the year 1986-87, interest would be for a period of six months. However, for 1987-88 the Settlement Commission condoned delay in filing the return and waived the interest under Section 139(8). As regards the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Settlement Commission imposed the minimum penalty.2. As regards the levy or waiver of inter...
Tag this Judgment!Nova Films and Paper Manufacturing Company, Rep. by Its Partner Mr. Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR340(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. These writ appeals are against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.7676 and 7677 of 2006 dated 20.3.2006, wherein, the appellant herein challenged the orders of assessment for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2001-02 respectively. Learned single Judge, referring to the decision reported in : (2005)2MLJ246 (Nivaram Pharma Private Limited v. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Branch and Ors.), dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Aggrieved of this, the assessee/writ petitioner has preferred these writ appeals, contending that when the proceedings taken were totally without jurisdiction, such a jurisdictional error could be corrected under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that although an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal is available, yet, an appellate authority under the Act was m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »