Chennai Court March 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aircel Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR85(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22.9.2006 made in ITA No. 955/Mds/2006 for the assessment year 2000-01, raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee has an option not to claim depreciation in any particular year?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahendra Mills [2003] 243 ITR 56 would be applicable to the assessment years after the omission of Section 34(1) of the Income Tax Act and Rule 5AA of the Income Tax Rules? and3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, explanation 5 to Section 32 of the Income Tax Act should be read to have retrospective operation, since it only explains the law as it stood?2.1. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing cell...
The Management of Melur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Ltd., Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ609Mad
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to order dated 27.03.2000 made in C.P. No. 25 of 1998 on the file of the second respondent Labour Court, Cuddalore, and to quash the same, the petitioner Bank has filed this writ petition.2. According to the petitioner Bank, the first respondent joined as its Secretary on 30.06.1988 and was suspended by its Special Officer on 09.08.1991 and subsequently dismissed from service on 09.05.1992 with effect from the date of suspension. This order of dismissal was quashed by the second respondent Labour Court vide its order dated 17.06.1996 wherein the petitioner Bank was directed to reinstate the first respondent with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits. In pursuance of the award of the Labour Court, the first respondent was reinstated in service effective from 20.12.1996 with payment of backwages upto 30.06.1992. Yet, the first respondent absented himself from duty from 17.02...
Rasi Silks, by Its Partner K. Arunachalam and K. Arunachalam Vs. T.A. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC152; (2007)3MLJ998
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Challenge in this Revision Petition is to the Order of eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960, [for short, 'the Act'], on the ground of additional accommodation.2. The demised premises relates to Old D.No. 163 and present D.No. 1497, Mettur Road, Erode. Revision Petitioners/ Tenants are running a textile showroom in the ground floor of the said building. Landlords are running a hotel in the building. According to the Respondents/landlords, they are running business partnership and the said firm is running Brindavan Hotel in a portion of Old D.No. 163 and they bonafide require the tenanted premises by way of additional accommodation for the hotel business. Stating that hotel business is expanding and it will be highly advantageous for the landlords, landlords filed Eviction Petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act.3. Revision Petitioners/Tenants resisted the Petition contending that portion in occupation o...
S. Alagarswamy Vs. the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR43(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 28.8.2001 made in Appeal Nos. 390, 391 and 392 of 2000-01 dismissing the appeals preferred against the assessment order dated 31.3.2000 made by the first respondent for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 for non payment of tax due as per the returns of income filed by the petitioner as contemplated under Section 249(4)(a) of the Income Tax Act (for brevity, 'the Act').2. In this regard, it is apt to refer Section 249(4)(a) of the Act, which reads as under:Form of appeal and limitation.249. (1) to (3) ...(4) No appeal under this Chapter shall be admitted unless at the time of filing of the appeal,-(a) where a return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid the tax due on the income returned by him; or(b) where no return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him:Provided that, in a case falling under Clause (...
Jagmogan Lamba Vs. P.N. Writer and Co., Rep. by Its General Manager an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ623Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above writ appeal is directed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 02.08.2004 made in WPMP No. 43874 of 2003 and WVMP No. 739 of 2004 in W.P.No. 36141 of 2003, in and by which, the learned single Judge has made the stay absolute and also dismissed the direction petition viz., WPMP No. 13270 of 2004 filed under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-workman as well as the first respondent-Management.3. It is brought to our notice that in the writ petition filed by the Management, questioning the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chenni-6, the workman has filed a counter affidavit, particularly in para 10, he furnished the following information.I state that I am not gainfully employed any where. I have sent a written request dated 02.12.2002 to the petitioner to reinstate me into service with back wages.But, the petitioner und...
Kanchipuram Silk Handloom Weavers' Co operative Marketing Society Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR63(Mad); CDJ2007MHC1533
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. This writ petition is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-8, seeking a prayer to quash the order dated 15.12.2003 in C.No.C.VIII/22(33)/2002-03, confirming the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Vellore Range. 2. The assessee/writ petitioner is a Cooperative Society. It is engaged in the business of marketing silk sarees produced by its members. It provides credit facilities, provides godowns on hire to the members, showroom facilities etc. It is stated that in the year 1991, the Income Tax vDepartment took the view that the petitioner was not entitled to have the benefit of exemption under Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act.3. The assessment was completed, denying the exemption under Section 80P(2). The successive appeals to the appellate authorities resulted in a rejection. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an application for reference to this Court under Section 256(2). This Court directed the Tribunal...
Aditanar Educational Institution Rep. by Its Chairman B. Sivanthi Adit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: [2008]297ITR376(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, had for its objects to establish, run, manage, or assist colleges, schools and other educational organisations existing solely for educational purposes, and taking note of the said object, exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act') was also being granted to the petitioner in respect of all its income arising from the educational institutions. Even though the Department denied exemption on the ground that the petitioner is not an educational institution within the meaning of Section 10(22) of the Act, this Court in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Aditanar Educational Institution : [1979]118ITR235(Mad) , held in favour of the petitioner and the same was confirmed by the Apex Court in Aditanar Educational Institution v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax : [1997]224ITR310(SC) . Thus, the petitioner was granted exemption up to the y...
E.K. Lingamurthy and L. Parameswari Vs. the Settlement Commissioner (i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Mad)296; [2007]293ITR76(Mad)
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are income tax assessees. The Income Tax Department conducted a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 11.10.1996 in the business premises of the assessees as well as their family members who were partners in various firms. The assessment proceedings were initiated under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act. The writ petitioners, as well as the Group, filed a consolidated petition before the Settlement Commission, the first respondent herein in the writ petition, for the block period commencing from 1.4.1986 to 11.10.1996. 2. The Settlement Commission admitted the application under Section 246-D of the Income Tax Act under order dated 27.2.1998. 3. The petitioners claimed unabsorbed depreciation and business loss for the Assessment Years 1995-96 and 1996-97, comprised of the block period. The claim was rejected by the Settlement Commission, first respondent herein. Under Order dated 19.11.2001, refe...
Baywest Power and Energy Private Ltd., Represented by Mr. N. Ramakrish ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR532(Mad)
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. These writ petitions are for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of assessment for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 dated 30.3.2004, passed by the respondent, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-I(2), Chennai. The assessee/petitioner herein is a company.2. In respect of the Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, it is stated that the assessee filed the returns under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The allegation of the petitioner herein is that, after issuing the intimation under Section 143(1) but without following the procedure prescribed under Section 143(2), the respondent proceeded to issue notice under Section 148. The said reopening was objected to on the ground of jurisdiction, apart from merits on the reopening.3. It is stated that the petitioner had informed the respondent that they are registered in the state of Karnataka and having their registered office in Bangalore. It is further stated tha...
M. Ganesan Vs. the Vice Chairman, the Settlement Commission (it and Wt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Mad)46; [2008]299ITR456(Mad)
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. The writ petition is against the order of the Settlement Commission dated 16.7.2002, rejecting the plea for waiver of interest chargeable under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C, relating to the assessment years 1989-90 to 1996-97, on the view that the conditions stipulated in the notification of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (C.B.D.T.) dated 23.5.1996 were not attracted.2. The petitioner preferred an application before the Settlement Commission under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act. The case was processed and ultimately, the Settlement Commission passed an order on 16.7.2002, fixing the total income at Rs.27,75,783/-. On the question of payment of interest chargeable under Sections 139(8), 215 and 217 of the Income Tax Act for the 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, the Settlement Commission waived 50% of the interest, taking note of the circumstances under Rules 117-A and 40 of the Income Tax Rules. However, for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1996-97, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »