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.
Procon Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-05-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR636(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessee, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'B', Chennai in I.T.A. No. 1546/Mds/2005 dated 28.09.2006 raising the following substantial question of law:Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest payment is not allowable under Section 57 of the Income-tax Act?2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is a Private Limited Company and is engaged in the manufacture and export of Computer Software relating to travelling industries. The relevant assessment year is 2001-2002 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.2001. The assessee filed Return of income on 31.10.2001 declaring 'Nil' income. The Return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act ('Act' in short). Later, the case was selected for scrutiny and also the assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act. The ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-05-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR702(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 401/Mds/2001 dated September 29, 2006, raising the following substantial question of law:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the upfront lease rent charges paid for taking the land and building at Pondicherry on lease for a period of 20 years for the purpose of setting up the new unit at PIPDIC Industrial Estate at Pondicherry, is a revenue expenditure?2. The assessee filed its returns for the period during the relevant assessment year claiming a sum of Rs. 30.00 lakhs and Rs. 8.00 lakhs paid for taking land and building at Pondicherry on lease for a period of twenty years, as revenue expenditure.3. The Assessing Officer, finding that the assessee had taken the land on lease for twenty years for setting up a new unit at PIPDIC Industrial Estate at Pondicherry, that the amount paid by the assessee as advan...
Andritz Oy, Rep. Through Power of Attorney Agent, Mr. Siraj Ahmad Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR545(Madras)
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. This is an application taken out by the first defendant in the suit, under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to refer the parties to the present suit CS No. 924 of 2006, to arbitration, in accordance with the provisions contained in the joint venture agreement dated 06.12.1995.2. I have heard Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant/first defendant, Mr. Y.P. Narula, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff and Mr. N. Ramakrishnan appearing for the second respondent/second defendant.3. The dispute between the parties, has arisen under the following circumstances:(a) The plaintiff, Enmas Engineering Private Limited, has an associate company by name Enmas Process Technology Limited (referred to in the abbreviated form as 'ETPL'), which is engaged in engineering, sales and distribution of recovery boilers and evaporators. The said company Enmas Process Technology Limited entered...
D. Shivashankar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the General Manager, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR23(Madras)
S. Rajeswaran, J.1. This original petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter called 'the Act, 1996', to set aside the award dated 10.09.2003 passed by arbitral tribunal, comprising of respondents 3 to 5 and pass a fresh award allowing all the claims of the petitioner.2. The brief facts as culled out from the petition averments are as under:The respondents 1 and 2 called for tenders for the following work:Gauge Conversion from Madras Beach to Tiruchirappalli-Villupuram-Tiruchirappalli Section-Transportation of PSC Sleepers by Road from factories at various places, unloading and stacking the same in the midsections at stations between Tindivanam and Ariyalur stations.The petitioner submitted his tender and the same was accepted and subsequently an agreement was entered into between the parties on 10.09.1997. The petitioner could not complete the work within the stipulated contract period due to shortcomings and breaches of contract...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Mad)125; [2008]296ITR81(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The Revenue has preferred the above tax case appeal against the order of the Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dt. 13th Oct., 2006 in ITA No. 2343/Mds/2004, raising the substantial question of law, as to whether the Tribunal was right in allowing depreciation on 'chlorine containers' claimed by the assessee at 100 per cent wherein the rule specifically states that 100 per cent depreciation is available only on 'gas cylinders including valves and regulators', under the following facts and circumstances of the case.2. The relevant assessment year is 1996-97. The assessee company is engaged in. the manufacture and sale of chemicals. Even though the assessment for the year 1996-97 was completed on 18th March, 1999, the same was reopened by issuing notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. During the reassessment, the AO disallowed the depreciation on chlorine containers claimed by the assessee at 100 per cent and treated these containers as normal plant and machinery and allow...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Kalaivani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-05-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR505(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.989/Mds/2006 dated 24.11.2006, raising the following substantial questions of law.(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in holding that the reassessment made under Section 147 is bad and deleting the addition of Rs.1,46,790/- towards unexplained investment in the construction of a commercial complex at Simco Meters Road Trichy is proper?(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that Section 142A is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the assessment year 1996-97 especially when Section 142A was inserted by the Finance Act 2004 with retrospective effect from 15.11.1972?2.1. The revenue is the appellant. The assessee filed her returns on 26.2.1999, which was processed under Section 143(3) of the Act along with the returns f...
A.B. Shanthi @ Venniradai Nirmala Vs. the Asst. Director of Inspection ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Mad)456
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment in C.A.No.of 1997 on the file of the Principle Sessions Judge, Chennai, which had arisen out of the judgment rendered by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, in E.O.C.C.No.207 of 1986.2. The short facts of the complaint is that the revision petitioner/accused, a cinema actress, had obtained a loan of Rs.4,65,000/- from the All India Anna D.M.K party, Chennai, as per the entry made in the above said party's ledger folio on 17.4.1986. The accused had admitted in her sworn statement given before the Assistant Director of inspection (investigation) on 23.4.1986 about the above said borrowal of Rs.4,65,000/- from the above said political party. According to the prosecution as per Section 269SS of Income Tax Act 1961, a person can obtain any loan or deposit only through an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft if the amount of loan exceeds Rs.10,000/-. Sinc...
P. Saraswathy Vs. the District Elementary Educational Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ155
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. Questioning the correctness of the order dated 05.03.2007 made in writ petition No. 1940 of 2007 this writ appeal is filed. In the said writ petition, the appellant/petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to call for the records relating to the order made in memorandum No. 2 dated 26.02.2007 passed by the third respondent, whereby the appellant was placed under interim suspension for certain charges levelled against her. That order of memorandum dated 26.02.2007 was put in issue by contending that the order impugned in the writ petition is violative of Section 22(3)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, in the sense that interim suspension can be passed only when certain action is contemplated and not thereafter. To put it precisely, such an order can be passed only at the stage of contemplation of action and not beyond that. Hence, the order of suspension is without jurisdiction. The other contention for assailing the impugned ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Elgi Finance Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: [2007]293ITR357(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, Madras Bench-B, Madras in I.T.A. No. 361(Mds)/2002 dated 12.12.2002. On 01.12.2003, this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the interest accrued on 'non-performing assets'2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is a company engaged in the business of leasing, finance and hire purchase. The relevant assessment year is 1998-99 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.1998. The assessee company filed its Return of loss for the said assessment year on 30.11.1998 admitting a loss of Rs. 10,25,985/-. The Return of loss was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act ('Act' in short) on 30.03.1999 determining a total income...
Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., Rep. by Its General Manager-legal Mr. B.S. Virka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(120)ECC22; 2007LC22(Madras); 2007(216)ELT683(Mad)
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The second respondent, Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry, has passed an order on 29.12.2006, that the Diffuser which has been fixed in the mosquito repellant machines manufactured by the petitioner is not eligible for availing drawback claim as per Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is seen that before passing the said impugned order, the 4th respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Drawback), has issued a notice dated 26.12.2006, captioned as 'demand notice', in which, even though the 4th respondent has called for any representation from the petitioner, giving opportunity for personal hearing, it is stated in the said demand notice as follows:(2) It was further informed that on re-examination of the fixation of the Brand rate with reference to definition of Drawback which specifies that imported/excisable material has to be used in the manufacture of exported goods whereas in this case the Mosquito Repellent Machine which was imported was...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »