Chennai Court June 2007 Judgments

B. JustIn Immanuel and ors. Vs. N. Suresh and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)IILLJ518Mad

ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 05.09.2001 passed in O.A.No. 1184 of 2000 preferred by the contesting respondents 1 to 5. The challenge in the said Original Application was to an order dated 09.11.2000 of the sixth respondent and for a direction to the sixth respondent to count the seniority of the contesting respondents in the post of Lighting Assistant with effect from their first date of appointment and consider the first respondent for regularisation with effect from the date on which his immediate junior namely the second respondent was regularised, i.e. on 19.11.1994 and respondents 2 to 5 for regularisation with effect from the date on which their immediate juniors namely the petitioners herein were regularised, i.e. 03.09.1997 with all consequential benefits.2. The facts relating to the respective date of joining of the petitioners and respondents 1 to 5 h...

Prof. Dr. S. Anandalakshmy, Convenor, Concerned Citizens' Committee Vs ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2007Mad310; (2007)4MLJ689

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is filed as Public Interest Litigation, seeking Writ of Mandamus against the respondents, which are all the Schools affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education (in short, 'CBSE'), to implement the direction of the Supreme Court in Principal, Cambridge School v. Payal Gupta reported in : AIR1996SC118 , to ensure that all students of class X are admitted to class XI in the same School.2. After giving notice by this Court, the Government of India as well as the CBSE and some of the Schools affiliated to CBSE, particularly D.A.V. Boys Senior Secondary School, Gopalapuram, D.A.V. Girls Senior Secondary School, Gopalapuram, D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Mogappair, P.S. Senior Secondary School, Mylapore, Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan, Nungambakkam and Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan, K.K. Nagar have appeared through their counsel. Students 27 in number, who have not been admitted in the same School where they have studied their X Standard have also...

icici Bank Ltd. Vs. the Jt. Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

1. Both these appeals by the assessee are directed against the combined order of the learned CIT dated 21 -02-2003 for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. As common issues are involved in both the appeals, they are being disposed of together for the sake of convenience.2. The common grounds raised in the appeals are that the CIT was not justified in invoking his jurisdiction Under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Besides challenging the validity of assuming the said jurisdiction, the assessee has also raised grounds on the observations made by the CIT in respect of several items.3. A brief history at the outset of the case would not be out of place.The assessee is a banking company and had filed its return of income for assessment year 1995-96 declaring total income of Rs. 17,54,850/-.The assessee had entered into 17 lease transactions during the year under consideration and had claimed total depreciation of Rs. 30,85,97,317/- in respect of 14 lease transactions ...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Cavinkare (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Reported in: (2008)113TTJ(Chennai)260

1. These two appeals by the Department and the cross-objections of the assessee arise from two separate orders of the learned CIT(A), both dt.30th March, 2005, for asst. yrs. 1999-2000 and 2000-01. As common issues are involved in both the appeals, all of them are being disposed of together by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. In asst. yr. 1999-2000, the grievance of the Department is against the CIT(A) allowing the claim of the assessee under Section 40A(7) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') and of the amount paid to LIC Employees Group Gratuity Scheme pursuant to the revised return filed by the assessee revising the return filed under Section 147 of the Act. In asst. yr. 2000-01, the Department is aggrieved against allowing the claim of the assessee under Section 80IIIIC of the Act under similar circumstances as mentioned above in respect of asst. yr. 1999-2000.3. In its cross objections, the assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings on the ground that t...

Ford Business Services Center (P) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Chennai)881

These cross-appeals and cross-objection by the assessee arise from the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 15th Dec, 2004 for asst. yr. 2001-02.We find it convenient to dispose all of them together by this combined order. The assessee's appeal is taken up first for consideration.1. The only grievance of the assessee is against not allowing the set off of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier assessment years against the profits and gains of a unit eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is engaged in the business of IT enabled accounting services and also in the development of computer software. While determining the total income the AO did not consider the carried forward business loss and carried forward unabsorbed depreciation which were claimed to be set off by the assessee against the income of the unit on which deduction under Section 10B was claimed. The CIT(A) observed that Section 10B was included in Chapter III whic...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Viswapriya Financial Services and Secur ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]303ITR122(Mad)

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. These appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'B', Chennai, in I.T.A. Nos. 177 and 178 (Mds)/98, dated December 29, 2004, raising the following common substantial questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty under Section 271C is not leviable on the assessee-company?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty under Section 271C is not leviable when the assessee had advertised in the newspaper that the return on the investments made with the company will not attract tax deduction at source, which is against the provisions of Section 194A and thereby induced the depositors to invest ?2. The facts leading to the above substantial questions of law are as under:The assessee is a public limited company incorporated under t...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Faizan Shoes P. Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]304ITR156(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 'A', Chennai in I.T.A. No. 1479/Mds/2002 dated February 28, 2006, raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that rectification of the deduction granted by taking the correct figure from the audit certificate produced by the assessee is a debatable issue, not permissible under Section 154?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the issue is decided in the Revenue's favour on the merits, but allowing the appeal on the ground that the rectification was beyond the scope of Section 154?2. The facts leading to the above substantial questions of law are as under:3. The assessee is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. The relevant assessment...

G. Ravi Kumar Vs. the Chairman and Dg of Ordnance Factory Board and an ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008(116)FLR80]

K. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner had got his name registered in the Employment Exchange as a skilled worker. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, Central Ordnance. Factory, Ministry of Defence, are not calling the candidates from the Employment Exchange while making appointments. But they are giving preference in employment to the Trade Apprentice, who are trainee by them. Therefore, the petitioner prays for a direction from this Court to the respondents that for future vacancies candidates must be called for from the Employment Exchange and appointments to be made as per the list.2. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit dated 20.9.2006 was filed. In that, they had stated that the department is guided by the instructions issued by the Ministry of Labour dated 26.2.1996 and following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, they have been recruiting the candidates strictly from the waiting list of Ex-Trade Apprentices of the second respondent factory. Al...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rane (Madras) Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Mad)250; [2007]293ITR459(Mad)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos. 409/Mds/2000 and 631/Mds/2001 dated 20.1.2006.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The relevant assessment years are 1996-97 and 1997-98. The assessee is engaged in the production of recirculating ball type steering gears in the units situated at Velachery and Mysore. During the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee started a new industry at Pondicherry for manufacture of Rack and Pinion Steering Gears and incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,08,00,000/- during the assessment year 1996-97 and Rs.9,48,405/- during the assessment year 1997-98, for the following:1. Interest on Exim Bank Loan2. Various Raw material consumed3. Stores consumed4. Tools consumed5. Travel Expenses (for foreign and Domestic travel of Employees on training and other official purposes)6. Salaries & Wages7. Printing & Stationery8. Computer Stationery9. Freight inward10. Freight outward11. Power & F...

K.T.R. Chowdhry and C.H. Chandrasekar Rao Vs. G. Mohan and Shanti

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)4MLJ682

M. Chockalingam, J.1. An order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority namely VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, affirming an order of dismissal passed by the Rent Controller namely XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in RCOP No. 964 of 2005 filed under Section 17(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for restoration of amenity, is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.2. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.3. The case of the revision petitioners/tenants before the authorities below was that they became tenants in the year 1996 under the previous owner in respect of the shop premises for non-residential purposes; that in the year 2002, the property was purchased by the present owner who is the first respondent herein; that as per the agreement between the parties, there was an electricity service connection for the supply of electric energy to the premises; that there was a meter inside the premises of the respondents; that...