Chennai Court April 2009 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Krishnamurthy

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]318ITR167(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. By framing the following question of law:Whether the amount paid to employees under the voluntary retirement scheme is entitled for deduction?the Revenue is on appeal before this Court under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated December 16, 2005, passed in I.T.A. No. 817/Mds/2004 in respect of the assessment year 2001-02.2. The assessee was an employee of the Indian Overseas Bank. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2001-02, the assessee retired from service under the voluntary retirement scheme offered by the said bank. On retirement, the assessee received from the employer bank several dues including ex gratia. The ex gratia had been worked out by the employer at 60 days salary for each completed year of service or salary for the number of months of service left, whichever was less. Out of the ex gratia thus received, the assessee claimed exemption of Rs. 5,00,000 as per t...

Rekhaparameswari D/O. Govindaraj Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs, P ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ3315

T. Sudanthiram, J.1. The appellant herein stands convicted by the learned Principal Special Judge, under NDPS Act, Chennai in C.C. No. 54 of 1994 for the offences under Section 8(c) r/w 21(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, sentenced to undergo 15 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh in default to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment; under Section 23 r/w 28 of the NDPS Act sentenced to undergo 15 years Rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh in default to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and also under Section 135(A) of the Indian Customs Act and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant herein had preferred this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:P.W.1 Usharani, who was the Security Officer at Madras Meenambakkam Airport, was on duty on 20.02.1989 at 6.30a.m., and she was searching the female passengers...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy and Another Vs. Srf Ltd. and An ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram M/s.SRF Ltd. are manufacturers, inter alia, of rubberized textile fabric, dipped tyre cord fabrics and tarpaulins out of unprocessed fabrics of man-made fabric yarn (classified by them under CET SH 5911.90), an intermediate product captively consumed. They purchase/import nylon/polyester filament yarn which is first twisted and then woven to produce grey (unprocessed nylon/polyester fabric) and then captively consumed in the manufacture of the final products. The department was of the view that the intermediate product woven from nylon/polyester filament yarn fell for classification under chapter 54.06 and that the assessees had wrongly availed exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE dt. 16.3.95 (captive consumption notification) for the reason that none of the final products cleared by them were livable to Additional Excise Duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and the benefit of the Notification was available only if t...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Road Development Company ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]316ITR383(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The revenue on appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai dated 05.09.2008 passed in ITA. No. 933/Mds/2007 relating to the assessment year 2004-2005 by formulating the following substantial questions of law: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 material facts as culled out from the statement of facts in the memorandum of grounds of appeal are as follows: For the assessment year 2004-2005, the assessee filed its return of income wherein it had claimed a sum of Rs. 87,86,382/- as revenue expenditure, towards techno-econ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aban Llyod Chiles Offshore Ltd. and Cor ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN51(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The revenue on appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 03.02.2006 passed in ITA Nos. 278, 279/Mds/2003. The following questions of law have been formulated in respect of T.C. No. 1494/07:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that MAT credit is to be set off against from the tax payable before setting off the tax deducted at source and advance tax paid?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the MAT Credit can be given priority of set off against tax payable, contrary to the scheme of schedule G of Form 1?3. Whether the interest Under Section 234B and 234C had to be calculated after giving the MAT credit against the tax payable on the basis of normal computation?The following questions of law have been formulated in respect of T.C. No. 1495/07:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in proceeding with th...

The Commissioner, City Municipal Corporation Vs. N. Chinnathurai and o ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ438

P. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ appeal arises from the order passed in M.P. No. 1 of 2006 in W.P. No. 45416 of 2006 filed by the writ petitioner for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the votes polled on 15.11.2006 for the West Zone Chairmanship of Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation and deposit the same before this Court pending disposal of the writ petition.2. In the miscellaneous petition itself, the issue of maintainability of the writ petition was raised, especially by the third respondent in the writ petition and the learned Judge, while holding that the writ petition is maintainable insofar as it relates to the challenge of election to the Chairman of a Wards Committee (Zone), directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore, who is the Returning Officer to produce the ballot papers in the Court, since there are only 18 ballot papers and the dispute relates to one ballot paper on which a zigzag mark was alleged to ...

Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Represented by Its Joint Manager (Acc ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)23VST486(Mad)

ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petitions, challenging the orders of assessment passed by the first respondent in all these writ petitions, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in respect of the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004.2. I have heard Mr. C. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Haja Naziruddin, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes). Since the petitioner bracketed a portion of the turnover as branch transfer and claimed to have paid tax in other States, but the same was disallowed by the first respondent, the petitioner has also impleaded the States of Kerala and Karnataka apart from the Union Territory of Pondicherry and the Union of India, as parties to the writ petitions. However, notices to them have been dispensed with, in view of the nature of the disposal that I propose to give to the writ petitions.3. Admittedly, the petitioner is a registered dealer, manufacturing cement an...

M. Paul Raj Vs. N. Paramasivam and the Executive Officer, Incorporated ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)6MLJ985

ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The civil revision petitioner/appellant has preferred this civil revision petition as against the order passed in I.A. No. 10 of 2008 in R.C.A. No. 16 of 2004 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District (learned appellate authority) in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to implead the Executive Officer, Incorporated and uncorporated Devasams, Suchindram, Kanyakumari District.2. The learned appellate authority namely the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, while passing orders in I.A. No. 10 of 2008 has come to the conclusion that the proposed party namely the second respondent Devasom Board is not necessary or a proper party to the appeal proceedings and resultantly, dismissed the application.3. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned appellate authority, has dismissed...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli Vs. Suja Rubber Industr ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram In this case, adjudicating authority disallowed the facility of payment of duties by the assessees in installments under Rule 8 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for the reason that the assessee had defaulted by delaying payment on three occasions in the financial year 2000-01 duty amount Rs.79,000/- payable in the second fortnight of July 2000 was made on 7.8.2000 while the date by which the payment was to be made was 5.8.2000; Rs.1,17,500/- being duty payable for goods cleared in the second fortnight of October 2000 was paid on 6.11.2000 when the last date for payment was 5.11.2000 and Rs.36,000/- being duty payable for clearances in the second fortnight of March 01 was paid on 12.4.2001 when the last date for payment of such duty was 31.3.2001. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessees that they could not be held to have delayed payment of Rs.1,17,500/- for the reason that the last date for payment viz. 5.11.2000 was a Sunday and pay...

Eid Parry (India) Limited and Another Vs. Cce (Ltu) Chennai and Anothe ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram In this case, a show-cause notice proposing recovery of credit of Rs.17,88,306/- being CENVAT credit alleged to have been wrongly availed by the assessees during the period from June 05 to January 06 was issued to them. The notice proposed recovery of appropriate interest and imposition of penalty. The notice was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, who vide his Order-in-Original No. 29/2006 dated. 29.12.06 extended credit to the tune of Rs.8,39,660/-, disallowed credit of Rs.9,48,646/- and confirmed the demand of the above amount together with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.6000/- on the assessee. The assessee as well as the Revenue preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order held that CENVAT credit was admissible to the assessee on various charges such as canteen charges, supervision charges, CandF charges, insurance fees etc., and restricted the denial of credit to Rs.28,560/- on CandF service in relati...