Chennai Court June 2007 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Yak Granite Industries P. Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2007(214)ELT508(Mad); [2007]294ITR153(Mad)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25.7.2003 made in ITA No. 721/Mds/1994 raising the following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the benefit of Section 80HHC is available for export of granites that were cut and polished?2. The assessee is engaged in excavating granites and cutting them into pieces, polishing them and then exporting them to foreign country. The assessee claimed that this process of cutting and polishing is manufacturing activity that has brought the finished product from the raw materials excavated from the mines. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Act on the ground that the assessee's activity of excavation, cutting and polishing the granites does not amount to manufacture. The appeal preferred by the assessee against the above o...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Parry Confectionary Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]299ITR321(Mad)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench dated November 7, 2003, made in I.T.A. No. 320/Mds/1997 for the assessment year 1993-94, raising the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 7,33,000 being the excise duty on the closing stock not cleared from the factory should not be included and(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in not following the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT : [2004]266ITR99(SC) wherein it has been clearly held that under Section 43B, the deduction is to be made only on the actual payments ?2. The Assessing Officer, while valuing the closing stock, included the excise duty element on the stock cleared from the factory and also on the closing stock not cleared from the factory....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]303ITR428(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. 807/Mds/98 dated August 17, 2005, raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not have mens rea to conceal income and to avoid tax?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in : [1987]168ITR705(SC) ?3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty even though the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars and had failed to submit the accounts in respect of the issue pertaining to p...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G. Saroja

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]301ITR124(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.(SS)A. No. 169/Mds/2000, dated November 5, 2003, for the block assessment period April 1, 1988, to August 20, 1998. On July 22, 2004, this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there was no transfer of property by the assessee to M/s. Kalpaga Builders on February 10, 1995, i.e., within the block period ending August 20, 1998, within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act and no capital gains were assessable for the block period2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:3. The assessee is an individual. There was a raid in the premises of M/s. Kalpaga Builders and its partners o...

Michel Anthony Vs. P.S. Chandraqsekara Raja

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ4175

ORDERP. Murgesen, J.1. This Revision has been filed against the judgment dated 23.12.2005 rendered in C.A.No. 62 of 2004 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I) Tirunelveli.2. The gist of the case is as follows:Accused received Rs. 1,21,000/-. from the complainant promising to repay the same, and he issued three cheques bearing Nos. 268644, 268642, 268643 for a sum of Rs. 46,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively. When the cheques were presented in the Bank, they were not honoured and returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. As per request of the. accused, the complainant presented the cheques again on 06.06.2003 and the same was returned with a memo dated 09.06.2003. It was informed to the complainant on 17.06.2003. On 01.07.2003 notice was issued to the accused, but the accused refused to receive it. He did not send any reply. Hence, the complainant preferred the complaint.3. Before the trial Court, P.W.1 was examined. Exs.P1 to P.8 were marked.4...

Bpv Classic Tea Factory P. Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director, Mr. D.K ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2007Mad323; [2008]142CompCas793(Mad)

ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Company Application has been filed by the Applicant/Petitioner to stay the public auction to be held by the respondent/Corporation Bank on 9.2.2007.2. Company Application No. 188/2007 has been filed by the petitioner-company in C.P.No. 190/2006 to stay the public auction to be held by the Corporation Bank, who was impleaded as the respondent as per order dated 8.2.2007 in C.A.No. 214/2007.3. The brief facts are as under:The applicant-company filed C.P.No. 190/2006 seeking the voluntary winding up under Sections 433(a) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent-bank who is the secured creditor of the applicant-company initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter called the 'SARPAESI Act', and the respondent took possession of the immovable properties of the Company which consists of the land and factory including the plant and machinery vide possessi...

The Income Tax Officer (Osd) Vs. Servion Global Solutions Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Reported in: (2008)117TTJ(Chennai)380

1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Chennai-34 dated 27.01.2005 and pertains to assessment year 2001-02.2. The first issue raised in the appeal is that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that assessee is entitled to exemption Under Section 10A. The company was incorporated in the financial year 1993-94 to trade in computer hardware, software and software development. The company started its export activities in the financial year 1998-99 relating to assessment year 1999-2000. The company is registered under Software Technology Park of India (STPI) w.e.f 25.3.2000. The custom formalities were completed on 2.6.2000. The assessee showed a profit of Rs. 7,55,36,413/- from STPI Unit and a loss of Rs. 1,58,27,453/- from non-STPI Unit. The entire profit of the STPI Unit is claimed as exempt Under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the loss from non-STPI Unit is carried forward to subsequent year. T...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sra Systems Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Chennai-34 dated 13.10.2004 and pertains to assessment year 2001-02.2. The issue raised in the appeal is that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the expenses incurred in foreign currency should be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of Section 10A of the Income Tax Act. SRA Systems Ltd., 100, Valluvar Kottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.3. On this issue, the assessee had claimed that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in foreign exchange for the services provided outside India should be excluded from the export turnover as well as the total turnover for the purposes of computation of deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act. However the Assessing Officer referred to definition of export turnover given in Section 10A and deducted the said expenditure from export turnover and not from the total turnover.4. Upon assessee's ...

income Tax Officer (Osd) Company Vs. Dsm Soft (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Chennai)469

1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VIII, Chennai-34 dated 29.07.2005 and pertains to assessment year 2001-02.2. The issue raised in the appeal is that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow relief Under Section 10A in respect of STPI Unit-I at Trichy. The assessee company, with a unit in Chennai, was incorporated on 8.6.1991 and since then has been engaged in development of software both for export and local market. The assessee had claimed deduction Under Section 80HHE till assessment year 2000-01. During the present financial year, assessee had started a new STPI Unit at Trichy and has claimed that the entire export has been affected by its export unit situated at Trichy. During the course of scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the STPI Unit continued to have the same export clients like that of last year. The majority of the employees of the...

Ttk Healthcare Ltd. (Formerly Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Chennai)412

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai-34 dated 6.8.2004 and pertains to assessment year 2000-01.2. The issue raised is that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in treating the non compete fee as revenue receipt. M/s TTK Bio-med Ltd. was merged with TTK Health Care Ltd. (formerly known as TTK Pharma Ltd.) w.e.f. 1.7.99. M/s TTK Bio-med Ltd. was manufacturing condoms and gloves and they entered into Non-compete Agreement with London International Group for discontinuing their condom business. London International Group is in the business of manufacturing and selling rubber contraceptives all over the world on its own and through its subsidiaries, joint venture companies and in India it is in joint venture with M/s TTK & Co. (Joint Venture Company TTK-LIG). London International Group paid 4,99,000 pounds as non-compete fee to M/s TTK Bio-med Ltd. Since TTK ...