Chennai Court July 2007 Judgments
Sam. R. Textiles Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: (2007)24VST609(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. The petitioner has reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 75,49,198 and Rs. 63,21,045 and the assessment order was passed on July 10, 2006. The inter-State sales of cotton yarn were assessed to tax at the concessional rate of two per cent and the petitioner had filed C forms for the above turnover. The petitioner was allowed exemption on the turnover of Rs. 12,28,143 as consignment sales of cotton yarn.2. Subsequently, the place of business was inspected by the enforcement wing officials on December 7, 2006 and they recovered certain original and duplicate copies of the C forms. Verification of the C forms revealed that for a single transaction two different C forms were submitted by the petitioner. The form 10 extract obtained from the petitioner at the time of inspection by the officials revealed that the bill numbers and value relied on vary with each other. In this connection C form ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vii Vs. Vijay Constructions
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: [2009]311ITR381(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 'A', Chennai in I.T.A. No. 2442/Mds/94 dated 21.10.2003. On 23.06.2004, this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the compensation amount paid by the assessee to the land owners towards the undivided share of land which was not sold is to be treated as a business expenditure?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had enough material to hold and was right in holding that the agreement with the land owners for payment of the compensation was among the seized documents?3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in accepting the assessee's version that the documents were with the department, and allowing the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Pondicherry Generators Manufacturers' Association rep. by Its Pres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ927
P.K. Misra, J.1. Challenge in this batch of writ petitions is against the Notification dated 29.12.1997 issued by the Government of Pondicherry. Under such Notification, the Government of Pondicherry has purported to frame rules, viz., the Pondicherry Municipalities (Tax on Procurement of Goods) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Such rules have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub Section (2) of Section 118 read with Section 440 of the Pondicherry Municipalities Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioners have raised two contentions in support of the various writ petitions. The first contention is that by virtue of such Rule, the constitutional right envisaged under Article 301 of the Constitution of India is being violated. The second contention is that such tax cannot be imposed and the power conferred under the Act to the rule making authority to frame rules, delegating the power to impose taxation, by framing ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sankara Narayanan, Proprietor, Shri Bhuvaneswari Films Vs. State of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad317; (2007)9VST401(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the provisions contained in Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax (3rd Amendment) Act (15 of 2003).2. Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') contains provisions regarding levy of entertainment tax on various modes of entertainment including by cinema. Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax, 1939 envisages payment of entertainment tax at the rate of 25% of the gross payment for admission for any new film and at the rate of 20% for the old. By virtue of the provisions contained in such Amendment Act (No. 15 of) 2003, hereinafter referred to as the '(3rd Amendment) Act', certain provisions have been inserted in the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 making provisions for payment of entertainment tax at a higher rate on tickets of 'dubbed films'.Section 3(3-A), inserted by (3rd Amendment) Act, is a definition clause according to which 'dubbed film' means ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Balaji Hotels and Enterprises Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2007
Reported in: [2009]311ITR389(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 'A', Chennai in I.T.A. No. 1348/Mds/2003 dated 04.08.2006 raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80-IA for the assessment year 1999-2000?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the process of printing activity will amount to manufacture in order to quantify for the benefit under Section 80-IA?3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not following the judgment in the case of Western India Pharmaceuticals Services (P) Ltd. reported in : [1998]230ITR96(Bom) wherein it was held by the Bombay High Court that the activity of printing manufactures name on Pharmaceu...
Tag this Judgment!P. Subbulakshmi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Governmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ919
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Declaration to declare that Section 3CC in Chapter IB of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 introduced by the Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 (Act 18 of 2006) published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazzette Extraordinary No. 223 dated 01.09.2006 by the first respondent is ultravires and unconstitutional.2. The case of the petitioner is that she was the elected member of Ward No. 8 of the then Courtlam Special Village Panchayat and assumed office on 30.06.2003, which should continue for five years unless sooner dissolved under law. While so, under the pretext of upgradation of the village panchayat into town panchayat in exercise of power under Section 3CC of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the tenure of the petitioner was reduced ending with 24.10.2006, which is against law, if at all that can be done onl...
Tag this Judgment!K. Balakrishnan Vs. Hotel Tamilnadu, a Unit of the Tamilnadu Tourism D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2007
Reported in: (2008)ILLJ612Mad
S. Palanivelu, J.1. Appellant was working as a Cook in the first respondent hotel from 1984. On 22.06.1988, the first respondent management shot a show cause notice, requiring the appellant to submit his explanation, for an irregularity, which he committed on 21.06.1988, during the course of his duty. It was stated therein that without kitchen order token (KOT), he prepared and sent some food items through one Vijayan, who was a casual labourer, to the Bar Room, where certain individuals were consuming alcohol. One K. Shanmugasundaram was the Bar In-charge at the relevant time. The items, said to have been pilfered, were : (i) Chicken Fry - 4 plates - Rs. 52/-; (ii) Chicken Biryani - 4 plates - Rs. 60/- and (iii) Vegetable Biryani - 2 plates - Rs. 20/-, costing Rs. 132/-. It was further stated that even after collecting Rs. 132/- from the customer, the above said staff had not remitted the amount by preparing a bill and the appellant herein misappropriated the amount. On the same day, ...
Tag this Judgment!D.K. Bhaskaran Vs. Barton Trust, a Registered Partnership Firm Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC198; (2007)6MLJ235
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the fair and decretal orders dated 23.1.2007 made in I.A. Nos. 151 of 2006 in O.S. No. 1 of 2005 and I.A. No. 152 of 2006 in O.S. No. 2 of 2005 respectively, petitions filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the exparte decrees passed in the respective suits on 18.10.2005.2. The respondents herein filed O.S. No. 1 of 2005 and 2 of 2005 claiming a sum of Rs. 5,41,030.88 and Rs. 45,23,815.24 respectively with 18% interest per annum and for costs. As the defendants/appellants herein remained absent on 18.10.2005, they were set exparte and the suits were allowed as prayed for.3. To set aside the exparte decrees, the appellants herein filed I.A. Nos. 151 of 2005 and 152 of 2005 respectively under Order IX Rule 13 CPC stating that the appellants were laid up with severe fever and diarrhoea from 16.10.2005 to 25.10.2005 and when the suits were posted for cross examination of the plaintiffs on 18.10.2005,...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i. Corporation Rep. by Its Regional Director Vs. R.P.M. Engineers ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR1010]; (2008)ILLJ235Mad
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madras, challenging the order dated November 2, 1995 made in ESI O.P. No. 98/1988.2. The first respondent herein filed ESI O.P. No. 98/1988 under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, by: contending that it is a Proprietory concern employing less than 20 workmen depending on the Government Tenders and its business premises is at 14, N.P. Developed Plots, Industrial Estate, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-97. According to the first respondent herein, the industry is covered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, to all the employees and paying regular contribution to the appellant herein. The appellant wanted to verify the documents and after perusal issued a notice in April 1986, which was received by the establishment on May 10, 1986, wherein it was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 7,312.55 towards security service for the period from Oc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Lumax Samlip Industries Ltd. and Custo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Mad)62; 2007(121)ECC259; 2007LC259(Madras); 2007[8]STR113; (2007)8VST791(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 by formulating the following Substantial Questions of law for consideration.i) Whether statutory powers of Commissioner to file appeal against an order in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 86(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 can be denied for the reason that Commissioner had once accepted the order in appeal ?ii) Whether acceptance of Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner becomes final and binding on the Department and whether the Commissioner can re-examine the order and file appeal under Section 86(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 before the CESTAT ?iii) Whether the Tribunal is right in rejecting the Department's appeal as being one without cause of action, without considering the merits of the matter?2. On the face of the question of law so far formulated, we wonder whether such questions of law arise in this case for resolution by thi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »