Chennai Court April 2007 Judgments
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sambandham Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: [2008]298ITR306(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The main issues that arise for our consideration in the above appeals under the following facts and circumstances of the case are:(i) Whether the replacement of machinery is to be treated as revenue expenditure, but not as a capital expenditure? and(ii) whether the interest paid on the borrowed capital to the extent relatable to the sums advanced to the sister concern is allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2.1. The facts relating to the first issue, viz., whether the expenditure incurred on replacement of machinery is capital expenditure or revenue expenditure, are stated as hereunder:The above appeals relate to the assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03. The assessee claimed deferred revenue expenditure incurred for the replacement of parts of plant and machinery, which reflected in the books and the balance sheet. The expenditure was in the nature of routine maintenance of the machinery and therefore, the same was cl...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kandagiri Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Mad)180
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The main issues that arise for our consideration in the above appeals under the following facts and circumstances of the case are:(i) Whether the replacement of machinery is to be treated as revenue expenditure, but not as a capital expenditure? and(ii) whether the interest paid on the borrowed capital to the extent relatable to the sums advanced to the sister concern is allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2.1. The facts relating to the first issue, viz., whether the expenditure incurred on replacement of machinery is capital expenditure or revenue expenditure, are stated as hereunder:The above appeals relate to the assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03. The assessee claimed deferred revenue expenditure incurred for the replacement of parts of plant and machinery, which reflected in the books and the balance sheet. The expenditure was in the nature of routine maintenance of the machinery and therefore, the same was cl...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shasenan M. Parpai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Reported in: [2008]303ITR193(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 30.4.1999 made in W.P. No. 5017 of 1999.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their rank in the writ petition.3.1. The writ petitioner is an assessee before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, City Circle VII (3), Chennai. She filed the return of income for the assessment year 1995-96 under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The assessment was completed on 23.3.1998 determining the total income at Rs.29,26,025/-. The tax payable in respect of the income other than capital gain was determined at Rs.75,516/-, of course after granting necessary rebate under Section 88 of the Act, viz. the amount of tax payable on income other than capital gain was determined at Rs.70,276/- and the capital gain tax was arrived at Rs.5,34,948/-. As per the said assessment order dated 23.3.1998, the tax payable was determined at Rs.8,45,175/-, after making certain additio...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vijayan Vs. Appukutti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC296
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the Judgment in C.A. No. 96 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore 2. A private complaint was filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 on the ground that the cheque drawn by the accused for a sum of Rs. 2,37,000/- in favour of the complainant on 10.10.1998 in order to discharge a hand loan of Rs. 2,37,000/- borrowed,on the same day, when presented for collection in the State Bank of India, Ranipet branch on 25.1.1999, the same was returned with an endorsement ' Refer to drawer'. Ex P1 is the cheque dated 10.10.1998 for Rs. 2,37,000/- drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant. Ex P2 is the memo issued by the State Bank of India ,Ranipet branch informing the complainant that the cheque was returned with an endorsement'Referred to drawer' The complainant had issued a not...
Tag this Judgment!Tmt. Velu Ammal, Vs. Sri Krishna Agencies and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ602; 2007(3)CTC378; (2007)4MLJ639
K. Venkataraman, J.1. The applicants in W.C. No. 125 of 1997 before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation No. II, Chennai-6 are the appellants before this Court.2. The case put forth by them before the said Authority was that one Anbazhagan, husband of the first appellant and father of the other appellants, died in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the first respondent on 18.8.1993. Their further case before the said Authority was that the deceased Anbazhagan was receiving a sum of Rs.80/- as daily wages and Rs.10/- as daily batta. On 18.8.1993, when he was working as Lorry Driver in the lorry bearing registration No. AP-26-T-4656 owned by the first respondent herein died due to electrocution during the course of employment at the first respondent's shed. The second respondent being the insurer of the said vehicle has been added in the said proceedings. The said proceedings has been initiated by them for payment of compensation for the death of th...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppusamy, Vs. the Addl. District Collector and the Special Tahsildar, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ592
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent concerning the Section 4(1) Notification issued on 5.1.1997 published in the South Arcot Vallalar District Official Gazette on 10.1.97 in W1/3983/96 under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (31/78) and quash the same and direct the respondents to forbear from acquiring the lands in R.S. No. 8/7 and 8/9D measuring 0.28.5 and 0.88.0 hectares respectively belonging to the petitioners.2. The 1st petitioner is the father of petitioners 2 to 4. The agricultural lands in R.S. No. 8/7 and 8/9D at Kolapakkam village, Cuddalore District belong to them. The lands even though were purchased in the name of the 1st petitioner it was a joint family property which was partitioned and divided by way of oral family arrangement and the different portions of the land are u...
Tag this Judgment!V. Subramaniam Vs. T. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC368
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 5099 of 1991 is the appellant in S.A. No. 463 of 2006 and he was the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 8169/1989 against which, he has filed S.A. No. 464 of 2006. 2. The respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S. No. 5099 of 1991 for declaration in respect of Plot No. 3, T.S. No. 2/5, measuring around 2400 Sq.ft., vacant land with a hut, compound wall and well in S. No. 61/3 and S. No. 61/4, Block No. 14, measuring 72 feet and 6 inches in East-West and measuring North-South 32 feet and 1 = inches totally around 2400 sq.ft. The said suit was dismissed. Against which, the respondent has filed an appeal in A.S.506 of 2004. 3. Likewise, the suit filed by the appellant in O.S. No. 8169 of 1989 for injunction in respect of suit property, which is house, ground and premises, bearing T.S. No. 2/5, Block No. 22 of Arumbakkam Village, viz.,No.7, New Natarajapuram, Arumbakkam, Madras 600 106 comprising 33' x 67' bounded on North by Ramamoorthy land, So...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.V.S. Sewing Needles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: [2008]302ITR13(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated March 17, 2006, made in I.T.A. Nos. 1121/Mds/2002, 415/Mds/2000 and 1167/Mds/2001 for the assessment years 1997-98, 1995-96 and 1996-97, respectively, raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction of the amounts spent on replacement of machinery as revenue expenditure ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, replacement of independent complete machinery can be treated as revenue expenditure ?3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deciding the issue of replacement of machinery without going into the concept of block of assets ?4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that excise duty and sales tax collection does not form part of the turnover, for the pur...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sarojini Vs. the State by the Sub Inspector of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: II(2007)DMC467
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the Judgment in S.C. No. 388 of 2001 on the file of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.2. A1 and A2 have been charged under Sections 498A, and 302 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.3. Before the trial Court, P.Ws 1 to 14 were examined and Exs P1 to P17 were exhibited and Mos. 1 to 8 were marked. On the side of the accused Exs D1 to D4 were marked.4. After going through the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Sessions Judge has held that the charges against A1 under Section 498A and 302 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the charges against A2 under Section 498A and 304((b) IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have not been proved and accordingly the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted both A1 and A2 under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The State has not preferred any appeal over the findings of the learned sessions Judge. P.W. 1 the...
Tag this Judgment!Rangasamy Gounder Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: II(2007)DMC489
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the complainant (P.W. 2), the father of the deceased against the Judgment in S.C. No. 229 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court, No. 5), Tirupur dated 30.7.2002. The case has been charged against a single accused who is none other than the husband of the deceased Mohanarani, the youngest daughter of the complainant/P.W. 2.2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows:The marriage between the deceased and the accused took place on 15.9.1996. The accused had often raised loan by pawning the jewels of his wife Mohanarani and has also demanded more dowry from the parents of the deceased Mohanarani which had driven her to take an extreme step of committing suicide on 18.8.1998 at about 6.00 p.m., in her house. Hence the accused has been charged under Section 304(B) and 498A IPC.3. The case was taken on file by the trial Court and on appearance of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »