Chennai Court August 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nexus Computer (P) Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Mad)54; [2009]313ITR144(Mad); [2009]177TAXMAN202(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Revenue is on appeal against the order of the Tribunal dt. 28th April, 2006, made in ITA No. 719/Mad/2004. The relevant assessment year is 2000-01.2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture and trading in computer system. For the asst. yr. 2000-01, the company filed its return of income under Section 143(1) (sic). The AO disallowed the payment of provident fund and ESI contribution as the payments were made belatedly in terms of Section 43B. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal by directing the AO to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 37,692 on the ground that they were paid within the grace period allowed under the statute. Aggrieved by that portion of the order of the CIT(A), which went against the assessee, the assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Special Bench rendered in the case of Kwality Milk Food...

R. Sukanya Vs. R. Sridhar and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2008Mad244

ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decretal order dated 21-7-2004 made in I. A. No. 848 of 2004 in O.P. No. 569 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Family Court at Chennai.2. Facts leading to the Civil Revision Petition are as follows:The revision-petitioner has filed O.P. No. 569 of 2004 on the file of the principal Family Court, Chennai for divorce. She filed an application in I. A. No. 848 of 2004, in the above O.P., to restrain the respondents 2 to 5 in any manner, printing or publishing the proceedings relating to the institution of the petition filed by her before the Family Court or carry any other recital as news item in the telecast or their respective publication and to punish them for any such violation. The trial Court dismissed the said I.A., on the ground that the respondents have not contravened the provisions of Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act and that they are not liable for any punishment under the provisions ...

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nagaraj and Ranagasamy

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ164

S. Palanivelu, J.1. In the claim petition, following facts have been stated:1. (i) The petitioner Nagaraj is son of one Rangasamy, a workman employed as Driver in first opposite party's car bearing Registration No. T.L.B. 549, who received personal injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in sustaining grievous injuries on 6.5.2000 in Madurai to Rameswaram Highways Road near Ariyanenthal. He was taken to Paramakudi Government Hosptial and later admitted at Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai. He suffered fracture. The car was insured with the Second Opposite Party. The monthly wage of the petitioner was Rs. 4,000/- and he was aged 34 years at the time of accident. Hence compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been prayed for.2. The allegations in brief, found in the counter of Second Opposite Party are as under:2.(i) The policy issued for the car is only an Act policy and the occupants of the car were not offered coverage under the policy of insuran...

Smt. Bagirathi and ors. Vs. S. Manivanan and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2008Mad250

P.K. Misra, J.1. The facts in brief are as follows:1.1 In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioners in this Review Application, it would be appropriate to trace the relationship and genealogy, which is apparent from the pleadings and the evidence of the parties.1.2 Appadurai and Doraisamy were two brothers. Doraisamy expired on 22.10.1965 leaving behind his widow Karpagambal. They had no issues. Sundarajan, the father of the present disputants, was the son of Appadurai through his first wife. Appadurai had also begotten another son Ranganathan and a daughter Radhabai through his second wife Sundarambal. Sundarajan had expired on 9.8.1975, leaving behind six daughters, who are the plaintiffs in the suit for partition (Petitioners in the Review Application) and two sons, who were Defendants 1 and 2 as well as his widow, the original Defendant No. 3. Such Defendant No. 3, however, had expired during the pendency of the suit. Initially the plaintiffs claimed 1/9th share...

Rajini Venugopal Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Mad)199

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The assessees filed the above writ petitions seeking for the relief of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in his file ABAPV2377G/R.II/2007-2008 and ABEPV8712D/R.II/2007-2008 respectively and quash the impugned order dt. 17th Dec, 2007.2. The above relief has been sought for on the following facts: When the assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 2005-2006 are pending before the ITO for completion, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment by computing the capital gains arising on transfer of a land invoking the provisions of Section 50C. Objecting to the proposal, the assessees preferred applications under Section 144A seeking intervention of the Addl. CIT in clarifying the interpretation of provision of Section 50C to the effect that only the actual sale proceeds received on transfer in the two instances of sale, the long-term capital gains as stated in the return of income has to be admitted. According to the assessees, the...

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited Rep. by It ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ208Mad

ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order in Approval Petition in A.P. No. 220/2004 declining approval for dismissal of the workman/second respondent for the alleged misconduct.2. Brief facts, which lead to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:(i) Second respondent was appointed as a daily paid Conductor in the petitioner/ Corporation on May 17,1986 and was absorbed into monthly cadre on September 1,1987 and he was working in the Tirukoilur Branch of petitioner/Corporation. On 6.2.2004, while the second respondent was performing duty in Vehicle bearing. Regn. No. TN-32/N1311 on Route No. 305 Special, he had not issued ticket to a passenger travelling from Tiruvannamalai to Aradapattu, after collecting a fare of Rs. 4/-from the said passenger and thereby misappropriated the Corporation money. Therefore, second respondent was placed under suspension and a charge memo was issued to him calling for his explanation. The explanation of second responden...

The General Manager Southern Railway Head Office, Park Town Chennai an ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appeal is filed as against the order dt.26.10.2007 passed by the District Forum, Chennai (North), wherein the complaint is allowed holding opposite parties / appellant herein jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- each as compensation to the complainant. 2. The complaint is filed before the District Forum by the Respondent herein by contending that the complainant and his mother reserved ticket to travel from Tambaram to Nannilam by Tambaram Kumbakonak Passenger Train on 23.11.03 and when the train reached Mayiladuthurai Junction, there was a delay of 1 hours and thereby they have missed the connecting train and were constrained to travel in another train in an unreserved compartment. It is the case of the complainant that he is 60 years old and his mother is 82 years old and at no fault of them they were made to suffer and there was deficiency in service and as such prayed for compensation. 3. Complaint was resisted by the appel...

R. Muthukrishnan Vs. the Manager Canara Bank Chennai

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The above Revision Petition is filed as against the order dt.4.2.2008 of the District Forum in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner herein to expunge certain portion and to reject the written version as inadmissible evidence. 2. As regards the 1st prayer is concerned viz. expunge paragraph 9 of the written version of the opposite party, the main objection raised by the petitioner herein is that a conclusion is arrived at by the opposite party as if a fraud is made upon by the complainant viz. evasion of tax as against the sovereign Government. The relevant portion is extracted herein. The Opposite party submits that they did not accede to the request of the complainant in not deducting tax at source as the same amounts to participation in the crime of evasion of tax played by the complainant against the Sovereign Government. Aggrieved as against the above remarks, the petitioner has filed an application to expunge the remarks. Eventhoug...

Dakshina Mara Nadar Sangam Through Its Secretary Cum Commissioner, Sab ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(5)CTC333; (2009)2MLJ309

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the argument of both sides and perused the records.2. The petitioner is a registered Society with Registration No. 6/1948. A Scheme Decree has also been framed in respect of the Soceity in O.S. No. 13/1942 by the sub-ordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The petitioner is also claiming that it has been registered as a Public Charitable Trust with the Income Tax Department. The petitioner owns several urban properties situated in various urban centres and rural areas in Madurai, Tirunelveli and Tuticorin Districts.3. The Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax, 1966 (for short 'ULT' Act) was enacted with a view to levy tax on Urban Lands in the State of Tamil Nadu. It was brought into effect from 1.7.1963 for the City of Chennai. Subsequently, it was made applicable to other Municipal Towns by various Government's Notifications.4. The Petitioner Association applied for an exemption under Section 27(1) of the ULT Act, which reads as follows:27. Power of Government to exempt or reduc...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. F. Praveen

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Mad)639

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench dt. 14th Dec., 2007 In ITA No. IT(SS)A No. 50/Mad/ 2003 and ITA No. IT (SS)A No. 59/Mad/2003 for the asst. yr. 1st April, 1989 to 5th Aug., 1999 raising the following substantial questions of law:Tax Case (Appeal) No. 1122 of 2008Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that out of Rs. 15 lakhs undisclosed income admitted by the assessee, to have received from another person, only Rs. 10 lakhs had to be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee when said transaction was not reflected in the books of account of the assessee?Tax Case (Appeal) No. 1123 of 2008Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest free amounts received and returned by the assessee to the company in which she is a director, cannot be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) in the han...