Chennai Court July 2008 Judgments
Cit Vs. Indbank Housing Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Mad)297
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 27-10-2006 in ITA No. 581/Mad/2005 for the assessment year 1996-97 raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the ease, the Tribunal was right In holding that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid when the assessee had failed to furnish all the relevant material to disclose fully and truly all 'material iacts necessary for proper assessment?2. Whether the non-disclosure of material facts viz., norms of National Housing bank based on which the assessee substantiated certain provisions would amount to full and true disclosure?2. The brief facts are as follows:The assessee is engaged in the business of housing finance.The relevant assessment year is 1996-1997 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31-3-1996. The assessee has filed the return of income on 28-11-1996 admitting the total in...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Road Development Co. Ltd. (N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: [2009]316ITR380(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, dated November 30, 2007, in I.T.A. No. 2096/Mds/2006. The relevant assessment year is 2003-04. The substantial questions of law formulated in this appeal are as follows:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards expenditure incurred by the assessee on techno-economic feasibility report for the manufacture of the new product?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, expenses related to feasibility study for a new project which did not take off can be considered as a revenue expenditure?2. The facts of the case are as follows:The assessee is engaged in the business of improvement, development and implementation of the infrastructure road projects. For the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 70,73,967 as revenue expen...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Apex Laboratories P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: [2010]320ITR498(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The correctness of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated February 10, 2005, I. T. A. No. 880/Mds/1999 is put in issue by formulating the following questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty is imposable under Section 271B for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 44AB on the ground that the returns were filed belatedly neither under Section 139 nor on a notice under Section 142 of the Act ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty without giving a finding of fact as to whether the tax audit report had been obtained within the prescribed time by the assessee ?2. The relevant assessment year is 1994-95. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly submitted that the assessee's own case involving similar questions of law for the assessment year 1993-94 has been decided ...
Tag this Judgment!T.T. Krishnamachari and Co. Vs. Joint Sub-registrar-i and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2008
Reported in: [2008]144CompCas708(Mad); (2009)2MLJ245
S. Nagamuthu, J.1. Though the miscellaneous petitions are listed today, by consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm. One T.T.K. Textiles Ltd., purchased the property bearing door Nos. 3 and 4, Cathedral Road, Chennai, measuring three grounds and 1,220 sq.ft. comprised in R. S. No. 1592/3, Block No. 32, Mylapore Division, by means of a sale deed dated July 7, 1992, registered as document No. 4339 of 1972 at the office of the District Registrar, Madras.3. The said TTK Textiles Ltd., became sick and was therefore, referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'the BIFR') under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short 'the SICA'). The operating agency, namely, the Bank of Baroda proposed a scheme for arrangement and compromise for approval and sanction of the BIFR under Section 18 of the SICA. In exercise of its powers under Section 18(4) ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Speciality Paper Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2008
Reported in: [2009]316ITR415(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal, Madras 'C Bench dated 30-11-2007 in ITA No. 1778/Mad/2006 for the assessment year 2001-02 raising the following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of commission by the assessee to a private limited company where its partners were directors is valid in law, when there is no evidence to show that the company had in fact rendered any service?2. The brief facts are as follows:The assessee is a registered partnership firm consisting of two partners. It is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of paper and boards. The assessment year is 2001-02 and corresponding accounting year ended on 31-3-2001. The assessee has filed a return of income on 31-10-2001 admitting the total income of Rs. 25.25,803. The same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. Later on, notice under Section...
Tag this Judgment!itc Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and 22 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR284]; (2009)ILLJ90Mad
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This Appeal is filed at the instance of ITC Ltd., Chennai impugning the order dated August 14, 2007 passed by the learned Judge of the Writ Court, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant.3. Subject matter of challenge in the Writ Petition was an order of the 1st respondent -Industrial Tribunal dated June 14, 2006 passed in Approval Petition Nos. 27 to 48/2001, which was filed under Section 33(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after referred to as the 'said Act').4. The material facts of the case, as alleged by the appellant, are that there was large scale violence on November 13, 2001 at the instance of workmen, and thereupon charge sheets were issued to all the workmen on November 17, 2001, but the workmen refused to accept the charge sheet. Then, an enquiry was sought to be held. Notices were sent to the workmen. But the case of the appellant is that the workmen refused to ac...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Kaveri Achi Vs. C.T. Ramasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Mad235
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed by one S.P. Kaveri Achi, who was the defendant in T.O.S. No. 51 of 2002, against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge on 22-4-2008 in Application No. 1691 of 2008 in T.O.S. No. 51 of 2002.2. The relevant facts of the case are that a petition Under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act read with Order XXV Rule 4 of the Original Side Rules of the Madras High Court was filed by Mr. C.T. Ramasamy in the matter of last Will of Mr. CT.RM.CT. Chidambaram Chettiyar, since deceased. In the said petition it was claimed that CT. Ramasamy is the son of the testator and the present appellant is the daughter of the testator. The testator died on 26-5-1999 leaving behind a registered Will dated 31-8-1998. It is claimed in the petition that CT. Ramasamy was the executor of the said Will and there were only two legal heirs namely, the present appellant, who is the only daughter of the testator, and CT. Ramasamy, the son. I...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Edhayam Frozen Foods and Cestat, South Zon ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(133)ECC275; 2008(159)LC275(Madras); 2008(230)ELT225(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This batch of appeals is filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, questioning the correctness of the Order of the Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench, Chennai, dated, 08th July, 2005 made in Final Orders Nos. 951 to 988 of 2005 whereby and wherein the Tribunal has rendered a finding that the exports of shrimps/prawn made by the Respondents were not exigible to levy of cess under Section 3 of the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940 read with item No. 7 in the Schedule attached to that Act, as the prawn and shrimps are different from fish for the purpose of Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940. The common questions of law that have arisen out of the Order of the Tribunal for the decision of this Court in all these cases, as framed at the stage of admission, are:1. Whether the Tribunal failed to consider that the provision of the Customs Act or the explanatory notes on the Harmonised systems of Nomenclature (HSN) cannot be rel...
Tag this Judgment!Narsey Brothers Vs. Nithyalakshmi Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2008
Reported in: [2008]144CompCas446(Mad)
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge made in Company Petition No. 27 of 2002, whereby a petition made by the appellant herein under Section 433(e) read with Section 434(1) and 439(2)(f) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking winding up the company of the respondent, was dismissed.2. The appellant/petitioner made a petition, stating that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm having its business at Mumbai. The respondent is the company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is having its business at Coimbatore. The petitioner is engaged in the business of sale of cotton bales to intending purchasers. As per the orders placed by the respondent for the supply of cotton, it was supplied as per the specifications received and the petitioner has raised invoices for the goods supplied. The respondent purchased on credit basis from the petitioner on November 30, 1999, 75 bales for a total price of Rs. 6,66,450. The respondent p...
Tag this Judgment!India Cements Capital and Finance Limited Vs. Shree Balaji Industries ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR216(Madras)
M. Chockalingam, J.1. Challenge is made to an order of the learned Single Judge made in Application No. 763 of 2002, whereby an order of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to seize the machinery set out in the schedule annexed to the application and to deliver possession was sought for, but the learned Single Judge refused to permit the appellant/applicant to repossess the machineries. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has brought forth this appeal.2. The court heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. Despite service of notice, the respondents have not appeared.3. The appellant made an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, alleging that the parties entered into a hire purchase agreement; that the respondents committed default in payment; that by virtue of the arbitration clause, the arbitration proceedings were initiated; that by virtue of the hire purchase agreement, the appellant/applicant was the owner of the machineries and they were entitled to re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »