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.
M. Prem Selvi Vs. the Executive Engineer, (Distribution) and the Assis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ471
M. Jaichandren, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, dated 5.7.1996, made in A.S. No. 173 of 1995, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 25.4.1995, made in O.S. No. 1835 of 1990, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.2. The suit in O.S. No. 1835 of 1990, had been filed by the plaintiff, who is the appellant in the present second appeal, praying for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction.3. The short facts of the case, as stated by the plaintiff, are as follows:The plaintiff is the owner of service connection No. 716, at Rathinapuri in Coimbatore and she is the owner of a Textile Unit registered as a Small Scale Industry. The sanctioned load of energy for the said service connection was 50 H.P. The Small Scale Industrial Unit is also having a generator with the capacity of 52.5 KVA for additional power supply. The generator was connec...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chan Basha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: [2008]298ITR346(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 'D', Chennai, in I.T.A. No. 2880/Mds/2004, dated March 24, 2006, raising 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 law in holding that there is no contribution made by the assessee during the assessment year for the construction, even though the investments are not contained in any books of account and they are unexplained or the explanation is unsatisfactory, the value of the investment is to be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year preceding the assessment year under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 19612. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of footwear. The relevant assessment year i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vgr Foundations
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: [2008]298ITR132(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai in I.T.A. Nos. 5/Mds/2003 and 906/Mds/2003, dated July 15, 2004, raising the following common 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 interest on moneys borrowed for the period prior to the commencement of business can be allowed as deduction from the interest under Section 57 of the Act while computing 'Income from other sources' in respect of the interest received2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:3. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the real estate business. The relevant assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 and the corresponding accounting years ended on March 31, 1997, and March 31, 1998, respectively. A survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act ('1961 Act' in short) was conduct...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ganesan Builders Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: [2008]299ITR403(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal made in I.T.A. Nos. 1035 and 1036/Mds/2003, dated July 14, 2006.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment years involved are 1997-98 and 1998-99. The assessee acquired shares from M/s. Amaravathy Chemicals and claimed the diminution in the value of shares as revenue loss. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee acquired the shares for the purpose of investment and not for the purpose of stock-in-trade and hence, the diminution in the value of shares will only be capital in nature. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer holding that the assessee had wrongly claimed a notional capital loss as revenue loss and thereby reduced its tax liability, imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for both the assessment years.3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, by orders dated February 3,...
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai Vs. Budhmal JaIn (Died) and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ680
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.9.1999 made in W.P. No. 10349 of 1997, whereunder G.O.Ms. No. 90, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 11.4.1997, cancelling the order of reconveyance of land made by G.O.Ms. No. 222, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 6.11.1995, was quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, viz., for want of opportunity before issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 90, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 11.4.1997.2. The facts in brief, relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as under. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the writ petition.2.1. The land of an extent of 3850 Sq.ft. located at Door No. 85, Big Street, Triplicane, Chennai-600 005, which was originally acquired from the petitioner under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity, 'the Act') for th...
Vijaya and Meenakumari Vs. the Inspector General of Registration
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad276; 2007(3)CTC756; (2007)4MLJ1240
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The petitioners suffered an order passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) dated 11.8.2003 which was received by them on 14.10.2003 which is not in dispute. Appeal was filed before the respondent herein on 12.12.2003. The respondent rejected the appeal on the ground that (i) the same was presented after the expiry of 60 days from the date of passing of the order which is in violation of Rule 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules; (ii) Rule 9(2) has not been complied with; (iii)Necessary proofs and notices have not been enclosed under Rule 9(3); and (iv) the relevant Court fee stamps have not been affixed.2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the condition No. 1 of the impugned order.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order was passed by the Special Collector(Stamps) on 11.8.2003, which was served on the petitioner only on 14.10.2003; that the said date ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sak Soft Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Mad)93; [2008]298ITR63(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 'B', Chennai in I.T.A. No. 1374/Mds/04 dated October 13, 2005, raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner was not justified in revising the assessment order under Section 263, as the order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue?2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that where a provision is capable of one interpretation, the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be erroneous?2. The facts leading to the above substantial questions of law are as under:The assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The 1 assessee-company is registered with Software Technology Park of India and carries on the bu...
Sri Selva Ganesh Traders Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)9VST411(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the respondent in proceedings No. TIN 33952282949/2006-07 dated April 27, 2007 cancelling the registration certificate of the petitioner issued under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.2. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are as follows:The petitioner is a registered dealer in oil seeds, oil cake, etc. He was running the business from March 15, 2006 and the goods dealt with by the petitioner are exempted from tax. The respondent issued a notice in TIN No. 33952282949/2007-08, dated April, 19, 2007 stating that the petitioner had purchased gingelly seeds from Regulated Market Committee, Ariyalur, during the year 2006-07, but he did not file any return or paid any tax. Therefore, the respondent determined the turnover of the petitioner's firm provisionally at Rs. 5 lakhs with a tax liability of Rs. 20,000 and fixed the additional security at Rs. 30,000 a...
C. Kuppusamy Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3483; (2007)5MLJ67
ORDERDharma Rao Elipe, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation by the petitioner, who is a Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to initiate appropriate action, by launching prosecution against Selvi J. Jayalalithaa in accordance with law for the offence alleged to have been committed by her under Section 177 IPC and directly control and monitor the same under the powers of judicial superintendence. 2. In his affidavit, the petitioner would submit that in the elections for the Legislature Assembly of the State of Tamil Nadu, held in the year 2001, Ms. Jayalalithaa had proposed to contest as a candidate and filed her nomination papers in four Assembly Constituencies viz. Andipatti, Dharmapuri, Bhuvanagiri and Pudukkottai, in contravention of Section 33(7)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and had given declarations that she had not been or would not be nominated as a candidate for mo...
Mala @ Mahalakshmi Vs. R. Nandakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ711
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This Tr.CMP is filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 23(3) of CPC to withdraw HMOP. No. 112 of 2005 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Mettur and transfer the same to the Family Court, Faziabad, Uttar Pradesh for enquiry and disposal in accordance with law. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondent/husband filed the HMOP No. 112 of 2005 before the Sub Court, Mettur against her for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that after marriage the petitioner/wife failed to conduct herself as a dutiful wife and give respect to him and elders; that she refused to resign the job as agreed earlier, that the petitioner/wife and her parents did not respect him and directed him to get out of the house when he visited her house after delivery of the child; that the petitioner refused to come to the matrimonial home inspite of several compromise talks by the elders of the family, instead she had used unparliamentary words agains...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »