Chennai Court June 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Mad)384
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1967/Mad/2005, dt. 1st Dec, 2006.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The relevant assessment year is 1997-98. The AO in a rectification proceedings dt. 27th Jan., 2004 made under Section 154 of the IT Act withdrew the interest amounting to Rs. 39,38,684 granted under Section 244A on the reason that the refund arose on account of payment of self-assessment tax made under Section 140A. However, on appeal, the CIT(A) by order dt. 29th June, 2005 allowed the interest on refund and the same was confirmed by the Tribunal in the order dt. 1st Dec, 2006.3. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has preferred the above appeal raising the following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 244A as per Clause (i)(b) of that section when the refund had arisen on account of pay...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.A. Oli Mohammed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR570(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'C', Chennai in I.T.A. No. 1273/Mds/2006 dated September 28, 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 restricting the addition under Section 69B to Rs. 9 lakhs after spreading it over the entire period of construction?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in restricting the addition to Rs. 9 lakhs without any basis in arriving at the same which is not proper?2. The facts leading to the above substantial questions of law are as under:The relevant assessment year is 1997-98 and the corresponding accounting year ended on March 31, 1997. The assessee filed the return of income on March 27,1998, admitting a total income of Rs. 99,620...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. George Oakes Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: [2008]303ITR357(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'A', Chennai, in I.T.A. No. 2966/Mds/04 dated September 1, 2006, raising the following substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to value its opening stock in one way and the closing stock in another, during the relevant year when Accounting Standard 2 had come into effect in the earlier year itself2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is a company. The relevant assessment year is 2001-02 and the corresponding accounting year ended on March 31, 2001. The original return of income was filed on October 30, 2001, declaring total income at Rs. 1,27,00,922. Later, the assessee filed a revised return declaring total income at Rs. 1,19,74,004 on November 27, 2001. The ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cholamandalam Securities Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Mad)100; [2008]296ITR408(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A. No. 1620/ Mds/2002 dated October 6, 2006, raising the following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had properly exercised its discretion and was right in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c), when clearly the assessee had not included the total brokerage received by it in its profit and loss account?2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is a company incorporated on September 28, 1994, as a 100 per cent, subsidiary of Cholamandalam Investments and Finance Co. Ltd. The company is a member of the Madras Stock Exchange and is doing business as a share broker. The relevant assessment year is 1997-98 and the corresponding accounting year ended on March 31, 1997. The assess...
Cit Vs. Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR573(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the revenue, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'D', Chennai in I.T.A. No. 1147(Mds)/2005 4-8-2006, raising the following substantial question of law:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that reassessment made under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 is bad in law ?2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is a company. The relevant assessment year is 1999-2000 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31-3-1999. The assessing officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act') on 27-3-2002. The assessee had disclosed all material facts necessary for the assessment and the assessing officer had considered the same and completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. Notice under Section ...
Rajchand Tea Industries and ors. Vs. Judicial Magistrate Class First a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC423; 2007(3)CTC705
P. Jyothimani, J.1. In all these cases, the common point involved relates to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the private complaints given by the drawees in respect of cheques, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 'N.I. Act') and also the power and jurisdiction of this Court in effecting transfer of those cases, which are pending outside the jurisdiction of this Court to the Courts within its jurisdiction.2. Writ Appeal Nos. 1463 to 1469 of 2006 are filed against the common order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P. Nos. 34289 to 34295 of 2006. These are cases relating to un-numbered process in respect of the matters stated to have been initiated before the first respondent, Judicial Magistrate Class First, Raipur, Chattisgarh State. 3. The case of the petitioners is that, they are having Tea factory at Katabetu, Nilgiris District. Even though they are not owning any Tea plantat...
The Union of India (Uoi) Owning Southern Railway Rep. by Its General M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad278
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above writ petitions are directed against the order of the appellate authority setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer, evicting the contesting respondents/encroachers, who are about 125 in number, from the public premises of an extent of 3.36 acres located in Survey No. 722/2, Ward 5, Block 16, Vellore District, on the ground that the Estate Officer had not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act viz.,(i) Notice under Section 4 of the Act;(ii) Recording of evidence that may be produced in support of the notice;(iii) Giving reasonable opportunity to the unauthorised occupant to represent the case;(iv) the authority must be satisfied that the public premises is unauthorisedly occupied;(v) the authority afterwards has to make an order of eviction;(vi) such an order of eviction must be supported by reasons;(vi) that order must direct the unauthorised occupier to vacate the premises on such date as may be specified in that orde...
D. Muralidharan Vs. Chinnappan (Died),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ635
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 6.1.2004, passed in I.A.No.122/2003 in unnumbered suit on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Erode (now numbered as O.S.No.105/2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's court, Erode).2. The defendant in O.S.No.105/2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode is the revision petitioner before this Court. He is aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 6.1.2004 made in I.A.No.122/2003which the trial court condoned the delay of 1664 days in representing the suit papers on condition that a sum of Rs.1,500/- to be paid to the other side as cost. Subsequent to the order dated 6.1.2004 the suit was numbered as O.S.No.105/2004.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the documents filed and the judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions.4. The learned Counsel for the revisio...
Jayalakshmi Vs. Arokkiamary,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad293; (2007)4MLJ946
S. Rajeswaran, J.1. A.S. Nos. 216/2004 has been filed by the 3rd defendant against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.3003 made in O.S. No. 4225/1999 on the file of the III Addl.Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. A.S. No. 261/2004 has been filed by defendants 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.3003 made in O.S. No. 4225/1999 on the file of the III Addl.Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 3. CRP.NPD No. 97/2006 has been filed by defendants 1 and 2 against the dismissal of the Application filed under Section 47 of CPC in E.A. No. 5825/2005 in E.P. No. 786/2005 in O.S. No. 4225/1999 dated 27.12.2005 passed by the X Asst.City Civil Judge, Chennai. 4. CRP.NPD No. 1108/2005 has been filed by 1st defendant against the dismissal of the Application filed under Section 47 CPC, in E.A. No. 6253/2004 in E.P. No. 1400/2004 in O.S. No. 4225/1999 dated 1.4.2005 passed by X Asst.City Civil Judge, Madras.5. O.S. No. 4225/1999 was filed by the plaintiff/1st respondent in both the first a...
N. Thirunavukkarasu Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC817; (2007)4MLJ225
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The appellant has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.667 of 1999, challenging the proceedings of the District Collector, Thanjavur, dated 16.10.1998, passed by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, (in short, 'the Act'), deciding to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner bearing Survey No.486/1A, measuring an extent of 0.57.0 hectares in Thiruvaiyaru West Village, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, Thanjavur District, contending interalia that he being the owner, was not given an opportunity to submit his objections and also copy of the report submitted by the enquiring of the Collector, has not been furnished. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, holding that in respect of the acquisition, award was passed as early as on 29.12.1998, while the writ petition came to be filed only afterwards, viz., on 12.01.1999. It is, as against the said order dismissing the writ peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »