Chennai Court June 2007 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the General Manager, Southern Railway, V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ1188
ORDERDharma Rao Elipe, J.1. This common order will dispose of the above five writ petitions as they have in common the fact-situation and the issues arising therefrom. In all these writ petitions, the challenge is to the order dated 5-6-2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'). While W.P. Nos. 28392 to 28394 of 2006 were filed by the three original applicants, W.P. Nos. 25606 and 25607 of 2006 were filed by the Railways.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned senior counsel for both, it comes to be known that the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 28392 to 28394 of 2006 and respondents in W.P. Nos. 25606 and 25607 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the delinquent-employees') were the employees of the Railways. Alleging that on 30-1-2004, they all, with premeditated mind, gathered on the platform of the Tiruchy Railway Junction, hurled verbal abuses against a retired Railway officer, who was leaving Trichy by train along...
Tag this Judgment!Brammagiri Vs. Minor Sivasubramaniam and Ayyasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC718; (2007)4MLJ1234
M. Jaichandren, J.1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, dated 09.03.1994, made in A.S. No. 214 of 1993, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, dated 08.01.1993, made in O.S. No. 295 of 1989.2. The first defendant before the trial Court is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S. No. 295 of 1989, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, praying for the passing of a preliminary decree for partition of the suit schedule properties, by dividing the same into four equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and to put him in separate possession of the same and for the cost of the suit.3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the plaintiff in the suit, are as follows:The plaintiff is the minor son of the second defendant. The defendants are brothers. The properties ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Paul Durai and ors. Vs. the District and Sessions Judge,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ794
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioners are all employees of the Judicial Department in the Villupuram District Unit. While petitioners 1 to 8 are holding the post of Office Assistant in the Criminal Unit, petitioners 9 and 10 are holding the post of Night Watchman in the same Unit. They seek for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to promote them to the next higher post in terms of the direction issued by this Court in ROC.No. 9259/91/Cl dated 10.9.1996, by considering their representations.2. According to the petitioners, the first respondent failed to follow the directions of this Court, wherein all the District and Sessions Judges, including the first respondent herein, have been directed to follow a combined seniority list both in civil and criminal Units whenever occasion arises for promotion to the next higher post or transfers.3. The first respondent has now filed a counter affidavit stating as under:5. I most respectfully submit that in the a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. CaplIn Point Laboratories Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Mad)58; [2007]293ITR524(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 by the Revenue, against the order of the Tribunal, Bench 'A', Chennai in ITA No. 2963/Mad/2004, dt. 27th Oct., 2006, raising the following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when the assessee had returned the interest under business income for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 80HHC and 80-I?2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The assessee company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products. The relevant assessment year is 1995-96 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31st March, 1995. The assessee company filed its return of income on 28th Nov., 1995 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,57,270 after claiming deduction under Section 80HHC and...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Southern Roadways Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2007
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Mad)298; [2008]304ITR84(Mad); [2009]183TAXMAN234(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30.8.2005 made in ITA Nos. 793 to 795 and 1075/Mds/2002 and 536/Mds/2000 for the assessment years 1995-96 to 1997-98.2. The Revenue is the appellant. For the assessment years 1995-96 to 1997-98, the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim of expenditure incurred on software packages as revenue expenditure and for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, he disallowed the claim of expenditure incurred on construction of new compound wall removing the existing barbed wires as revenue expenditure. For the assessment year 1995-96, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of expenditure on replacement of UPS and for the assessment year 1996-97, he disallowed the claim of expenditure incurred on replacement of printer and treated the said expenditure as capital expenditure. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner o...
Tag this Judgment!The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, Housing and Urban ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ1327
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In both the appeals common question of law being involved and common order under challenge, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The lands of the first respondent (writ petitioner) was acquired pursuant to a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, he having challenged, the writ petition, W.P. No. 11039/86 was allowed. The said judgment was reversed in W.A. No. 1247/94, but with certain observations allowing the first respondent to represent before the authority for reconveyance of the acquired lands in her favour. The application for reconveyance of lands having been rejected on 22nd Feb., 2000, the first respondent challenged the said order by filing the writ petition in question and the same having been allowed, the present appeals have been preferred by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Housing Board').3. It appears that the first respondent purchased land...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premier Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR157(Mad); [2009]179TAXMAN13(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated April 28, 2006, made in I.T.A. Nos. 1892 and 1893/Mds/2000 for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and reopened the same with prior permission of the Commissioner of Income-tax and issued notice under Section 148 of the Act and passed orders. Aggrieved, the assessee went on appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who dismissed the appeals. On further appeals, the Tribunal holding that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the same would amount to change of opinion, allowed the appeals. Hence, the above appeals raising the following substantial question of law:Whether the Assessing Officer is empowered to reopen an assessment based o...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Director of Income-tax (Exemption) Vs. Murugappa Chettiar Tr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2007
Reported in: [2008]303ITR360(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 'C', Chennai, in I.T.A. No. 513(Mds)/94, dated February 15, 2001. On June 16, 2004, this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that Rs. 4,86,304 which was not invested in another capital asset could be eligible for exemption under Section 11(1A) of the Income-tax Act?2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is a trust. The relevant assessment year is 1990-91 and the corresponding accounting year ended on March 31, 1990. The assessment was completed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' in short), raising a demand of Rs. 4,60,433. The assessee-trust sold certain lands for Rs. 9,65,625 and out of t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2007
Reported in: [2008]306ITR317(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated March 15, 2005, made in I.T.A. Nos. 246, 247, 248 and 249/Mds/2002 for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87, respectively, raising the following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of the assessments is null and void as per the provisions of Section 150 of the Income-tax Act?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in applying the ratio of the decision of the apex court in K.M. Sharma v. ITO : [2002]254ITR772(SC) and hold that reopening of the assessment is barred by limitation and null and void as per the provisions of Section 150 of the Income-tax Act?(c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the compensation and interest amounts received by the assessee as per the apex court decision dated Ja...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. United India Shoe Corporation Pvt. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2007
Reported in: [2008]302ITR326(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'A' Bench dated 31.7.2003 made in I.T.A. No. 1536/Mds/2002 for the assessment year 1996-97, raising the following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the job work charges received by the assessee would not form part of profits of business under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC and in further holding that 90% of such job charges ought not to have been excluded from such business profits from computing the deduction Under Section 80HHC?2.1. The assessee firm is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of shoe uppers. The assessment of the assessee firm for the assessment year 1996-97 was originally completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (for brevity, 'the Act') on 13.8.1997. The Assessing Officer, subsequently, found that the assessee's claim under Section 80HHC of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »