Chennai Court July 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.
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Transport Development Fi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: [2008]306ITR136(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J1. 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.A. No. 1726/Mds/2004 dated 19.01.2007, 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 upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and accordingly the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 148 is held as bad in law, even though the facts and circumstances of the case fall within the exemption provided in Explanation 1 to Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is a Company. It is a Government of India Undertaking. The relevant assessment year is 1997-98 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.1997. Regular assessment was complete...
M. Kathyayani, Vs. V. Mahendran and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1484; 2007(4)CTC792; (2007)4MLJ815
S. Palanivelu, J.1. This appeal is filed by the claimants, against the disallowed portion of the award, dated 24.08.2001, made in M.C.O.P. No. 1803 of 1997, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, in awarding a compensation of Rs. 9,34,800/-, as against the claim of Rs. 15,00,000/-, for the death of one Janakiram.2. Claimants are wife and daughters of the deceased. 3. On 14.01.1997, at about 00.10 hours, when the deceased was riding his scooter bearing registration No.TN-04-7158 in Rajaji Salai-Kodimara Salai junction, a lorry bearing registration No.TDL-9869, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said scooter, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. First respondent is the owner of the lorry, which is insured with second respondent.4. The Tribunal factually found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and, therefore, compensation has to be ...
V.P. Thangavel and anr. Vs. Manimegalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ389
S. Palanivelu, J.1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company against award dated 26.2.2001 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 459 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Chidambaram, awarding a sum of Rs. 6,27,000, for the injuries sustained by the respondent.2. On 9.8.1999 at about 2 p.m., while the respondent-claimant was returning back after selling vegetables in Siluvaipuram Bus Stand by a bus, the two-wheeler belonging to the appellant No. 1 dashed against her causing serious injuries. With regard to the manner of accident and the fixing of liability upon the respondent No. 1 and the insurance company, there is no debate. There is no infirmity with regard to the findings of the Tribunal and the factors regarding the accident.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants very much assails the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal by vehemently arguing that it is excessive and it does not conform to the settled legal principles. Exh. P3 is the wou...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramachandra Hatcheries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Mad)370
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 'D', Chennai in I.T.A. Nos. 147 and 148/Mds/2001 dated 24.02.2006, 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 law in holding that, the reopening of the assessment was bad in law under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, even though the assessing officer giving effect to the first Appellate Authority order in conformity with Supreme Court Judgment reported in : [1999]237ITR174(SC) is as per law2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is a partnership firm, running Hatcheries and Poultry. The relevant assessment years are 1992-93 and 1993-94 and the corresponding accounting years ended on 31.03.1992 and 31.03.1993, respectively. For the a...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kay Arr Enterprises,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Mad)244; [2008]299ITR348(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The Revenue has preferred the above tax case appeals against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 26.7.2005 made in ITA Nos. 930, 928 and 931/Mds/2000, raising the substantial questions of law, viz.,(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the family arrangement as arrived by the assessee to rearrange the share holdings to avoid possible litigation themselves will not attract Capital Gains Tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that, the re-arrangement of share holdings in the company to avoid possible litigation among family members to be a prudent arrangement, the same cannot be held as a transfer of shares which is exigible to Capital Gains Tax ?under the following facts and circumstances of the case, which are common in all the three appeals.2. The ass...
V.S. Subbarayan Vs. the Principal, Government Arts College (Men) and t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC689; (2007)6MLJ537
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Petitioner seeks to quash the order of the respondents 1 and 2 dated 8.7.1994 and 17.11.1994 respectively and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to retire from service on 30.6.1994 and to pay all the retirement benefits with cost within stipulated time.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows.(a) Petitioner was appointed as Lab Assistant in the in the Government Arts College (Men), Krishnagiri, in the year 1964 and subsequently he was promoted as Junior Assistant in the same College. At the time when he filed the original application he had put in more than 30 years of unblemished service.(b) On 17.9.1993, petitioner proceeded on earned leave initially for three months and thereafter applied for unearned leave upto 30.6.1994. During leave period, he sent a letter of voluntary retirement on 9.3.1994. Till then his leave was neither sanctioned nor rejected. On 22.3.1994 first respondent sent a reply stat...
Sun Tv Limited Vs. Tata Sky Limited and the Telecom Disputes Appellate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ277
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. While W.P. No. 12827 of 2007 has been filed challenging the order dated 19.03.2007 passed by the second respondent in Petition No. 291 (C) of 2006 and to quash the same, W.P. No. 12826 of 2007 has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 03.04.2007 passed by the second respondent in E.A. No. 3 of 2007.2. Since the facts involved in these two writ petitions are same, they are decided by this common order and the facts which are necessary for consideration, are as under:a TATA Sky Limited ('TATA' for short), the first respondent herein had filed a petition under Section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority Act of India, 1997 in Petition 291(c) before the Telecom Dispute Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), the second respondent herein seeking the relief of declaration that Sun TV Limited (in short 'Sun TV'), the petitioner herein, is a defaulter in terms of Government of India order dated 01.06.2005 for having refused access of the channels on a non...
Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad304; (2007)6MLJ259
S. Palanivelu, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in M.A. No. 9 of 2006, dated 26-4-2006, and quash the same.2. The factual matrix of the case is as mentioned below:2.1. The petitioner bank filed O.A. No. 516 of 1998 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, against the third respondent and others, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,10,46,655/-and the said O.A. was allowed, as prayed for, on 26-6-2001. Subsequent to the said order, the bank preferred D.R.C. No. 156 of 2001 on the file of Recovery Officer-II of Debt Revovery Tribunal-I, for realisation of the decretal amount. The Recovery Officer-II also initiated proceedings to sell the immovable properties mentioned under item Nos. 1 to 6 of the Recovery Certificate, which were equitably mortgaged by the defendants with the petitioner bank, as security. Auction notification was published in newspapers on 25-12-2004. On 11-1-2005, the properties wer...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.M. Abdul Azeez and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2007
Reported in: [2007]293ITR384(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. 1527 and 1528/Mds/2006 dated 28.09.2006, raising the following common substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the concealment of income was not proved for the purpose of levying penalty Under Section 271(1)(c), when the assessee himself could not prove the same and offered it for assessment only subsequent to the issuance of notice Under Section 148? 2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The relevant assessment years are 1997-98 and 1998-99 and the corresponding accounting years ended on 31.03.1997 and 31.03.1998, respectively. For the assessment year 1997-98, the assessee filed Return of income on 24.10.1997 admitting a total income of Rs. 89,963/-. Later, noti...
S. Baskaran Vs. the Inspector of Panchayats/District Collector and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ846
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The first Writ Petition i.e. W.P. (MD) No. 885 of 2007 is filed by one Baskaran, who was appointed as Overhead Tank Operator (OHT Operator) on part-time basis with a salary of Rs. 600/- per month by the second respondent/Panchayat and according to the petitioner, he has been working in the said post for a period of five years and by a resolution dated 2.11.2006, his services were terminated by the Panchayat.2. In Writ Petition (MD) No. 1266 of 2007, the petitioner is one D. Kandasamy, who was working as a part-time clerk and was terminated from service by an order dated 9.2.2007 given by the Village Panchayat.3. Both the Writ Petitioners have come before this Court and filed the aforesaid Writ Petitions. Interim stay was granted in the case of W.P. (MD) No. 885 of 2007 on 3.2.007 for a period of eight weeks. Likewise, in W.P. (MD) No. 1266 of 2007, interim stay was granted on 12.4.2007 till the first week of June, 2007 and it was extended till 13.6.2007 and therea...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »