Chennai Court August 2007 Judgments
Manidhaneyam Charitable Trust Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2007
Reported in: [2009]308ITR120(Mad); [2009]183TAXMAN29(Mad)
M. Chockalingam, J.1. The petitioner, a charitable trust represented by its managing trustee, has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the notice issued by the second respondent on September 18, 2006, in Na. Ka. No. 158/06 and also to direct the second respondent to return the document, viz., gift deed registered on July 10, 2006, by giving effect to the remission as per G. O. Ms. No. 1224/Revenue, dated April 25, 1964, read with G.O. Ms. No. 224/Commercial Taxes (Jl), dated December 11, 2003.2. The court heard learned Counsel on either side.3. The case of the petitioner, as could be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition and also after hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that he is the managing trustee of the trust in question, and the petitioner was registered, vide the deed of declaration of trust dated January 24, 2005. It is also registered as a public charitable trust under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Director of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax-i Vs. Lucas Tvs Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2007
Reported in: [2009]308ITR377(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The appeal is filed framing the following questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that excise duty and sales tax do not form part of the turnover for the purpose of calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remanding the issue as to whether the scrap sale receipt should form part of the total turnover to the assessing officer? 2. The assessment year is 1993-94. The return of income for the said assessment year which was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer, while completing the assessment, recomputed the benefit under Section 80HHC by including the excise duty, sales tax and scrap sales receipts in the total turnover. Aggrieved by that order of the assessing officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who confirme...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M. Pachamuthu and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Mad)254
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeals are filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'D' Bench made in I.T.A. Nos. 123 and 124/Mds/2004 dated 28.7.2006. The relevant assessment year is 2000-2001.2. The aseessees were the Directors of M/s. Hotel AMS Pvt. Ltd., Kondalapatti, Salem. During the course of survey conducted on 16.11.1999 under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, it was noticed that the company had constructed the hotel with the share capital funds said to have been floated by the Directors. On enquiry with the assessees, the assessees offered a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- as income, out of which Rs. 2,00,000/- each in the name of the assessees and remaining in the name of other members in Hindu Undivided Family. The assessees also admitted that there was no source for share capital and their share in the construction amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- each can be taken as unexplained investment. The assessees filed return of income on 21.9.2001 admitting the inco...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ponnambalam Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Author ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2007
Reported in: (2008)IILLJ527Mad
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The unsuccessful petitioner is the appellant in this appeal, which arises from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.6.2002 made in W.P.No. 1273 of 1995.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their rank in the writ petition.3.1. The genesis of the proceedings leading to the present case, shorn of unnecessary details, may be stated thus:The petitioner was an employee under the third respondent/employer on daily wage basis. He was appointed under the third respondent/employer on 1.1.1956, however, the third respondent/employer closed its operation during February, 1965 and thereafter, reopened the establishment only during December, 1966 and the petitioner continued to serve the third respondent/employer after reopening of the establishment. When the petitioner was transferred from Tiruparaithurai to Madurai, he did not report duty at Madurai, which resulted in his termination on the ground that he voluntarily abandoned service. After ...
Tag this Judgment!The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Kannan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC831; 2008(1)MhLj754
S. Palanivelu, J.1. Insurance Company has filed this appeal, aggrieved over the award, made in M.C.O.P. No. 128 of 1995 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gobichettipalayam. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties are referred to in this judgment as mentioned in M.C.O.P. before the Tribunal.2. On 09.11^1994 at about 09.30 a.m., while lorry bearing registration No. TTI 7647, belonging to third respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner/was coming on Sathy-Puliyampatti Main Road near Pungampalli Tank at Kadaimadai, it collided head on with another lorry, bearing registration No. TN 33 Z 0556, belonging to sixth respondent, driven by its driver, who was also reckless. In the said accident, the persons travelling in the cabin and those who were on the backside body of the lorry received injuries and some of them died.3. The claimant was travelling in the lorry, belonging to sixth respondent. According to him, he was travelling in the said vehic...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeswari and Parameswari Vs. Sri Bhuvaneswari Cycle Mart Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC588; (2007)6MLJ47
ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. The present review application has been filed praying for review of the order passed by His Lordship Mr Justice N. Dinaharan [as he then was] dated 23.01.2004 made in C.R.P.(NPD) No. 1836 of 2003.2. The short facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the review application is as follows:The petitioners/applicants are the landlords and they filed eviction petition against the respondent in RCOP No. 44 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif), Erode, on the ground of wilful default and for demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent Controller allowed the above eviction petition. On an appeal by the respondent herein in R.C.A. No. 13 of 2001, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Erode, by his order dated 25.06.2003 set aside the same, thereby dismissing the petition for eviction filed by the petitioners/applicants. The petitioners/applicants aggrieved against the said order ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, Ct and Re Department, V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: (2008)13VST256(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petition is filed by the revenue seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records on the file of the second respondent i.e., Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal pertaining to its order dated 30.4.2003 in O.P.No. 994 of 2002 and quash the same. 2. Before the Special Tribunal, the first respondent dealer filed O.P. seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2002 Act') is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and thereby unconstitutional, arbitrary and ultra vires.3. The above relief was sought for in the following circumstances:The first respondent is a dealer in hides and skins and assessee on the file of the third petitioner - Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District. For the assessment year 1998-99, the first respondent was assessed to tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-op. Society Rep. by Its Managing Direct ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: (2008)IILLJ463Mad
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 15344/1994 dated February 1,2002, partly allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein ordering reinstatement with 25% back wages.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal as could be seen from the affidavit are that the first respondent herein/writ petitioner was employed as Billing Clerk-cum-Salesman under the 4th respondent in the writ petition from 1979 and he was kept in temporary post. From 1985 till February 29, 1988 he was continuously employed for more than 300 days and on February 26, 1988 he made request claiming confirmation and therefore the management terminated his services from February 29, 1988. The said termination having been without any notice and without paying compensation as required to be paid under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the writ petitioner raised Industrial Dispute and the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Ambal Garments Exports Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: (2008)15VST325(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This writ appeal is against the order of the learned single judge rejecting the writ petition filed to quash the order of the Joint Commissioner (CT) passed in exercise of the suo motu revisional powers under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.2. The appellant-firm herein is engaged in the manufacture of hosiery goods and ready-made goods for export. In the course of the assessment year 1990-91, the branch office of the appellant was inspected by the enforcement wing officials on November 28, 1990, wherein, they recovered 100 slips/incriminating records. On the basis of the seized materials, after giving opportunities to the appellant herein, the assessing officer estimated the suppression of turnover at Rs. 48,68,412 taxable at two per cent, disallowed the claim of exemption on the reported turnover of Rs. 60,58,788 and fixed the taxable turnover at Rs. 1,09,37,130. Apart from this, penalty was also levied at Rs. 1,46,052 under Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy Vs. State rep. by Special Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Mad25; 2007(5)CTC113; (2007)5MLJ486
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. In order to ensure that all students studying in standards I to X in all schools in the State to learn Tamil as compulsory subject, the Government of Tamil Nadu, as a policy, enacted the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006 (Act No. 13 of 2006) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which received the assent of the Governor on the 9th June, 2006, and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary on 12th June, 2006. The relevant provisions of the 'Act' read as follows:Section 2(e) of the Act defines a 'school' as meaning,-(i) any Primary School, Middle School, High School or Higher Secondary School maintained by the State or Local Bodies; or(ii) any Primary School, Middle School, High School or Higher Secondary School established and administered or maintained by any private educational agency including minority school established and administered under Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution, whether receiving aid out of the State fund or not...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »