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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corpn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: [2009]311ITR202(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27.1.2006 made in ITA Nos. 1256, 1257, 1337 and 1338/Mds/2001, raising the substantial questions of law, viz.,(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure for issue of debentures and fixed deposits is a revenue expenditure ?(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that stand by assets which are not put to use during the relevant year are entitled to depreciation ?under the following facts and circumstances of the case.2. The assessment years involved in these appeals are 1993-94 to 1996-97 respectively, during which the assessee claimed deduction of expenditure incurred on issue of debentures and collection of fixed deposits as a revenue expenditure. The assessing officer disallowed the claim, as also the depreciation on stand by machinery. Aggr...
S. Murugan Vs. K. Rajeswari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ240
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above appeals are directed against the common order of the Family Court, Coimbatore, dated 14.11.2000 passed in H.M.O.P. Nos. 715 and 755 of 1995.2. While H.M.O.P. Nos. 715 of 1995 was filed by the husband for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, H.M.O.P. Nos. 755 of 1995 was filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court, after considering the materials available on record, dismissed the petition for divorce and allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/husband.3.1. The facts, in nutshell, are stated as follows:The marriage of the appellant/husband with the respondent/wife was solemnized on 30.8.90 at Coimbatore as per the Hindu customs and rites. After the marriage, they lived happily for some time and out of their lawful wedlock, one female child and one male child were born and the male child is stated to be no more. The appellant is working as a driver in the Mett...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Ramaamirtham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Mad)206
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.A. No. 778(Mds)/2005 dated 11.01.2007, 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 confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the profit earned on sale of surplus shares will attract capital gains, even though profit made on sale of shares is assessable as business income based on materials available on record?2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is a registered share and stock broker of Madras Stock Exchange Limited, carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Brilliant & Co., mainly deriving income from house property, business, capital gains and also from interest and dividend. Th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trishul Investments Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2007
Reported in: [2008]305ITR434(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.A. No. 437/Mds/2004, dated January 25, 2007, 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 profit/loss on purchase and sale of shares of Raasi Cements Ltd. should be treated as capital gain/loss and also allowing indexation benefit?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the interest liability incurred on borrowings to acquire the shares?2. The facts leading to the above substantial questions of law are as under:3. The assessee is a public limited company and is carrying on the business of investment in shares and securities. The relevant assessment year is 2000-01 and the corresponding accounting year ended on March 31, 2000. The a...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Ravindran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR153(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. 1584/Mds/2005 dated 15.02.2007, raising the following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that the addition of Rs. 10.00 lakhs being the unexplained credit is not leviable?2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is a person of Indian Origin and is a citizen of Sri Lanka. The relevant assessment year is 2000-2001 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.2000. The assessee filed his Return of income on 01.03.2001 admitting a total income of Rs. 60,000/- in the status of Non-Resident. The Return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act ('Act' in short) on 24.09.2001 and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinners P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2007
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Mad)520; [2008]304ITR417(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 'A', Madras in I.T.A. No. 1195(Mds)/94 dated 18.06.2003. On 22.06.2004, this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that cash payments made by the assessee pertains to refund of share application money and not repayment of deposit or loan?2. Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that penalty under Section 271E is not leviable?2. The facts leading to the above substantial questions of law are as under:The assessee is closely-held )( in which the public are not substantially interested. The relevant assessment year is 1990-91 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.1990. The assessee...
H.J. Siwani and M.J. Siwani Rep. by their Power Agent Mr. Jeevaraj Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC254; (2007)6MLJ1572
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Challenging the Judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai made in R.C.A. No. 1263 of 2005, whereby the order of the XVI Small Causes Judge, Rent Controller made in R.C.O.P. No. 1130 of 2004, a petition for eviction, was confirmed on the ground of willful default and for non-user, this Civil Revision Petition has been brought forth before this Court.2. The Court heard the learned Counsel on the side of the petitioners and also on the opposite side.3. The respondent landlord, questioning the monthly payment of rent by the tenants at Rs. 6,000/- per month, filed R.C.O.P. No. 295 of 2003 for fixing the fair rent and the fair rent was fixed at Rs. 14,292/- and from the date of the filing of the R.C.O.P., the tenants were not paying even the monthly rent at Rs. 6,000/- per month and thus they fall in arrears for a period of eight months from August 2002 to March 2003, which was paid belatedly in April 2003. Subsequent to t...
Madha Engineering College, Rep. by Its Chairman Vs. State of Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC13; (2007)6MLJ1
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in a batch of writ petitions. The challenge in these petitions is to the constitutional validity of some of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2006 (Act No. 3 of 2007) (for short 'the Act'), and the consequential Government Order Nos. 115 and 87 dated 25.05.2007 and 16.03.2007 respectively issued in pursuance of the Act. The writ petitioners are the un-aided minority and non-minority professional colleges and the Consortium of Self Financing Professional, Arts & Science Colleges. The main ground of attack in the writ petitions is that the provisions of the Act are violative of the petitioners' fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 of the Constitution of India. 2. The factual matrix of the matter may be noticed first. From the year 1993-94 till the year 2002-03, admissions to self-financing Medi...
Leitner Shriram Manufacturing Ltd. Vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Mad16
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to quash the proceedings of the second respondent in his Letter No. SE/CEDC/N/HT/AO/R/AS/F 1543/D 852/07 dated 29-5-2007 and consequently direct the respondents to effect supply without insisting the payment of arrears of H.T.SC. 1543 left over by M/s. Dyna Lamps and Glass Ltd.2. The petitioner, an industry involved in the manufacture of Wind energy Generators, with a view to generate energy through wind, started an industry at No. D-17, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi in Thiruvallur District. The petitioner purchased the said immovable property in public auction conducted by M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. in pursuance of public notice, dated 14-2-2005 and a Sale Certificate was issued by the Authorized Officer of the concerned Bank. As per the terms of the sale certificate, the sale of the scheduled property was made free from all encumbrances known to the secured creditors. As such, no liability what...
indo Germa Products Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2007
Reported in: (2009)24VST342(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated June 27, 2007 and consequently, direct the respondent to lift the bank attachment.2. The petitioner is carrying on a business in rolling shutters and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. They are assessed to sales tax both under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 in TNGST No. 0620259 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in CST. No. 32178/November 1, 1994. It is the case of the petitioner that they are regularly submitting their returns and paying taxes from the date of inception of the company. They further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to turnovers and taxes, to be paid as per A1 return filed by them. It is also the case of the petitioner that due to heavy setback in the business, the petitioner-company faced severe financial crises from the year 2000 onwards and they are liable to pay tax for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, which are...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »