Chennai Court September 2007 Judgments
Chandrakant N. Tolia Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2007
Reported in: [2009]316ITR312(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The assessee has filed this appeal framing the following questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the intimation issued in terms of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the said intimation in spite of the Board circular reported in 209 ITR 75?2. The assessee owns an immovable property at No. 7, Arulambal Street, T. Nagar, Chennai. It is stated that the same was used for self-occupation and hence, there was no income assessable under the head 'income from house property'. The assessee had taken the property at 532, Mount Road, Chennai, on rental basis. This had been sub-let to a number of other concerns from whom rents were collected. In the return filed for the Assessment Year 1996-97, the assessee admitted a rental income of Rs. 1,20,000/- and deducted therefrom Rs. 1,08,000/- being rent paid...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Edapadi Municipality Vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour, A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR385]; (2008)ILLJ763Mad
K. Venkataraman, J.1. The petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated May 11, 2007, to quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to entertain the Appeal and pass orders on merits.2. The case of the petitioner that against the award passed by the second respondent dated February 20, 2006, the petitioner has filed an Appeal on April 3, 2006 before the 1st respondent. The same has been returned on June 14, 2006 by the 1st respondent stating that the petitioner has not made the deposit as per the requirement of Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.Thereafter, the petitioner re-presented the Appeal with necessary enclosures on April 3, 2007. The said Appeal has been rejected on the ground that there is a delay of 399 days in preferring the Appeal.3. Admittedly the Appeal has to be preferred within 60 days and thereafter the Authority constituted under the said Act has got power to condone the...
Tag this Judgment!P. Udayakumar and ors. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ694
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioners who are Technical Assistants-Mechanical in Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam, Salem District, have filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the Memo of the third respondent in his Memo No. 008029/45/G55/G552/2005-2 dated 27.03.2005 and quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to consider and select them as Junior Engineer-Mechanical (Grade II) by internal selection in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations as amended in B.P. Ms.(FB) No. 47, Secretariat Branch dated 12.06.1987.2. The petitioners' case, in brief, as culled out from their affidavit, is as under:The petitioners who are diploma holders in Mechanical Engineering, were appointed as Technical Assistants in the respondent Board on compassionate ground on 06.01.2000. Pursuant to calling of applications by the second respondent for internal selection to the post o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajanikant Schnelder and Associates P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Reported in: [2008]302ITR22(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeal is filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, made in I.T.A. No. 346/Mds/2002 dated February 20, 2003. The relevant assessment year is 1998-99. The substantial question of law formulated for entertainment of the appeal is as follows:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee having no profits from the export is eligible for the deduction under Section 80HHC on its book profits under Section 115J?2. For the assessment year 1998-99, the assessee filed its return. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee in respect of the deduction under Section 80HHC, on the ground that the book profit income computed under Section 115JA was a negative income. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the assessment order o...
Tag this Judgment!Madurai Management of Social Science, Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. the St ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1040
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Since the case of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is inter-related, these writ petitions are decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners in these writ petitions shall hereinafter be referred to by their names.2. The case of the petitioners in all these writ petitions, in nutshell, is, as under:(i) Madurai Management of Social Science, (hereinafter referred to as 'the College Management') issued a Charge Memo to one N. Narayanasamy stating that on 14.01.1993, he had removed the iron rods and pipes from their premises with the help of one G. Malaisamy, Sanitary Worker working in their Management and sold the same for his personal use and he was called upon to submit his explanation. Pursuant thereto, the Government, by order dated 03.07.2001, passed orders directing the Management to reinstate Narayanasamy into service and to treat the period of suspension as Earned Leave. Aggrieved by the same, the College Management file...
Tag this Judgment!State by Deputy Supdt. of Police, 'Q' Branch CiD Vs. Sundaramoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ898
D. Murugesan, J.1. The appellant, the State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Q Branch, CBI, Dharmapuri, has approached this Court questioning the order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 311 of 2007 in Spl.C.C. No. 5 of 2003 in Split up Special C.C.No.1 of 2006 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Cases, Chennai at Poonamalleee.2. The appellant had approached the Special Court seeking for police custody of the respondent by name Sundaramoorthy on the ground that he might have connection with the other absconding accused, viz., Navin @ Prasath, Chandra, wife of the accused and one Bharathi, who, according to the appellant, belong to Extremists and Terrorist Group and the respondent might have known the hiding places of the other three accused and the places where arms, ammunitions and explosives were hidden. The said application was dismissed by the Special Judge, as stated earlier. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the State.3. The circumstances under which the appea...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Arkonam Cooperative House Mortgage Society Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)IILLJ637Mad; (2008)2MLJ374
S. Palanivelu, J.1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the portion of the order contained in paragraph 8 on the question of Resjudicata and against that portions of the order in paragraph 19, 20 and 21 (ii) to (iv) directing the First Respondent's case to be tried by the Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, passed by His Lordship Mr. Justice K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. in W.P.No. 21269 of 1994 dated 22.8.2003.2. The factual background of the case is as follows:a. The first respondent joined as Supervisor in the Appellant's Society on 1.5.1961. Thereafter, he was promoted to the category of Secretary Gr.II. On 9.10.71 he was served with a charge memo and on account of the same, the President of the Society warned him and the said order of warning was forwarded to the Assistant Registrar, Ranipet, who in turn responded to the President of the Cooperative Society stating that the punishment awarded should be enhanced and then it was altered into one of p...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Chellammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, School Ed ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ97
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The common issue involved in all these cases relate to the orders passed by the third respondent, Assistant Educational Officer, Tenkasi Range, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District in directing the 6th and 5th respondent Schools respectively in these writ petitions, to recover from the salary of the petitioners the amounts stated to have been paid in excess by wrongly fixing the selection grade and special grade to them.2. The petitioner in W.P.No. 18520 of 1999 was appointed in the year 1980 as a full-time Pre-vocational Instructor (Craft Teacher) in T.D.T.A. Middle School, Rajagopalaperi-Bungalow Surandai Postrate, Veerakeralampudur, Tirunelveli District, 6th respondent in the writ petition. The said school is an aided institution. On the representation of the said Craft Teacher to raise her salary on par with her counterparts in the High Schools since the job was similar in nature, One Man Committee was constituted by the Government which has made its recommendatio...
Tag this Judgment!Sony India Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)18VST49(Mad)
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. These writ petitions in batch are taken up together for disposal, as they raise common questions.2. M/s. Sony India Limited, Chennai is the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 17424 and 17425 of 2003. It is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, 'the TNGST Act') and is an assessee on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Egmore-II Assessment Circle, Chennai. According to the petitioner, it is a fully owned subsidiary of M/s. Sony Corporation of Japan and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of colour television sets, audio products and other consumer electronic products. It inter alia imports and sells LCD projectors, handy cameras, projection televisions, some models of car stereos and high-end audio systems. It imports the above goods from abroad at New Delhi and Mumbai and the imported goods are packed in accordance with the Weights and Measures Rules affixing MRP stickers, etc., and are despatched to a netw...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Company Affair ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1303
ORDERElipe Dharmarao, J.1. The first respondent herein belongs to the Indian Company Law Service. He was transferred to Chennai from the Post of Deputy Director, Policy, Ministry of Company Affairs, New Delhi, by an order dated 13.12.2005, at his request. But, within a period of seven months, he was once again transferred from the said post to Calcutta as Deputy Director (Inspection) by order dated 17.7.2006. Challenging the said order, the first respondent herein has filed O.A. No. 531 of 2006 before the Tribunal on the averments that as per the transfer policy issued by the Government, no transfer can be made within a period of three years and as such, the impugned order of transfer passed within a period of seven months is liable to be set aside. It is further stated that the order of transfer is against the Government Order dated 30.9.2002 and was passed at the instance of the third petitioner herein viz, the Regional Director, Southern Region and who from the beginning does not wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »