Chennai Court April 2009 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiva Texyarn Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: [2009]182TAXMAN1(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 5.5.2008 passed in ITA No. 2089/Mds/2006.2. The material facts culled out from the statement of facts in the memorandum of grounds of appeal are as follows:The assessee private limited Company filed return of income for the assessment year 2004-2005 on 1.11.2004 declaring an income of Rs. 1,10,31,970/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) on 31.3.2005. The assessing officer denied the assessee claim of tax credit of Rs. 8,46,276/- made under Section 115JAA(4) and (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which the assessee had paid on book profits in assessment year 1999-2000. The assessing officer denied the relief on the ground that there was no specific provision of the Act to give credit for MAT on the gross tax payable. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who all...
Commissioner of Income Tax I Vs. Five Star Marine Exports (P) Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: [2009]283TAXMAN184(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeal is at the instance of the revenue against the order dated 18.9.2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench in I.T.A. No. 814/Mds/2005 relating to the assessment year 2001-02 by formulating the following questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remitting the matter to the assessing officer to await the outcome of the writ petition, without deciding whether the delay in filing the first appeal was condonable?2. Whether the Tribunal can straightaway go into the merits of the case, where the lower appellate authority has dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay and not on merits?2. The facts of the case are as follows:The assessee is engaged in the business of export of sea food. The assessing officer has made an addition on account of DEPB expenses and donations made by the assessee in his assessment order dated 29.1.2004. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the asses...
S. Nagoor Babu @ Mano Vs. the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - Ii an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Mad)287; [2010]320ITR500(Mad); [2009]181TAXMAN33(Mad)
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Since the issues involved in all the four writ petitions are identical, these writ petitions are decided by this common order.2. The facts of the case as seen from the affidavit, would run thus:(i) The petitioner is a popular playback singer both in Tamil and Telugu films. He is assessed to income tax on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Film Circle, Chennai in File No. 10703-N in PAN No. AAEPN-5678-D. Though he is a resident of Chennai, he spends most of his time in Hyderabad, where the bulk of his work lies. According to the petitioner, in the cinema industry the career span being very short and uncertain, the artists usually exert themselves to the full whenever there is demand, leaving no time for anything else.(ii) The petitioner has a very humble beginning in the industry. His peak period has been from 1992 to 1998, during which, he spent most of his time in Hyderabad and normally worked 16 hours a day and because of his commitment, he co...
L. Annapoorna, Vs. the Secretary for Education, Government of Pondiche ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ642
V. Dhanapalan, J.W.A. No. 546/2007:1. Appellants were appointed as Guest Lecturers on 08.01.1997 in the second respondent institution, namely, Bharathiar Palkalaikoodam by way of an advertisement in newspapers and later their services were regularised on 12.11.1997, granting UGC scale of pay of Rs. 2200/ - 4000/-. While so, on consideration of representation of teaching staff, the second respondent institution, by an order dated 21.03.2000, formulated a formula for the induction of teaching staff, numbering about 21, by suitable categorisation and giving one time relaxation to get the benefit of scale of pay of Rs. 8,000/- - 13,500/-, subject to certain conditions.2. According to the appellants, respondents 3 to 23 were unqualified and appointed on contractual basis and there could not be fitment in the UGC scale of pay for Lecturers and the appellants, for possessing qualification and good academic record, ought to have been placed above the respondents, as they were better qualified ...
Shri Kamal Basha Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: [2009]316ITR58(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The revenue on appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, 26.09.2008 passed in ITA No. 1875/Mds/07 in respect of the assessment year 2003-04.2. The material facts as culled out from the statement of facts in the memorandum of grounds of appeal are as follows:(i)The assessee is an individual carrying on business of trading in Iron and Steel as also job work of decoiling of iron and steel to two of his proprietary concerns viz., M/s Kamal Steel Corporation and M/s Modern Steel Enterprises. For the assessment year 2003-2004, the return of income was filed on 31.10.2003 on a total income of Rs. 12,93,439/- which return was taken up for scrutiny assessment and it was finalised Under Section 143(3) of the Act on 10.03.2006. While so doing, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 34,51,447/- for the aggregate of sundry creditors appearing in the books of the assessee on the ground that in the course of assessment p...
Tanfac Industries Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Cust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(165)LC186(Madras)
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. In these three appeals, the following Substantial Questions of Law arise for consideration.i) Whether the Customs Circular No. 26/07, dated 20.7.2007 is legally correct ?ii) Whether the appellant is liable to pay the interest under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, when no duty is paid in cash, as having been exempted as per Notification 05/2002 and 96/2004 ?iii) Whether, adjustment of credit granted by the Government on export of goods in the DEPB towards import duty payable buy for the exemption is equivalent to payment of duty in cash ?iv) Whether clearance of goods from the warehouse after 90 days means that payment of duty due to the Government was delayed so as to earn interest by the Government ?2. The appellant, who is the holder of private bonded warehouse licences No. 02/84 and 1/2005 issued under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 received Acid Grade Flourspar falling under Chapter heading 25 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 from the Customers Bonded wa...
Rangasamy Vs. the General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ107Mad
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order, dated 15.10.2001, passed by the respondent, discharging the petitioner from service and to reinstate him in a suitable post, with continuity of service, pay protection, backwages and other attendant benefits.3. It has been stated that the petitioner had joined the service of the respondent Corporation, as a Driver, in the year 1983. Thereafter, on reviewing his service he was designated as a senior driver and later, as a selection grade driver, in the higher scale of pay. The petitioner has blemishless service and he has been given cash awards for accident free driving. When he was working in Gopichettipalayam depot, on 12.6.2000, he had met with an accident and he had suffered injuries due to the said accident. He had to undergo surgeries due to the fr...
F. Parveen Vs. T.D. Naidu and the State, Rep. by Inspector of Police L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4009
P.R. Shivakumar, J.1. As against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.05.2002 pronounced by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C. No. 8406/2000, the defacto complainant who was also examined as PW-1, has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C.2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the criminal appeal can be briefly stated as follows:i) The Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai 600 101, who figures as the second respondent in this appeal registered a case against the first respondent herein/accused based on the complaint of the appellant herein (defacto complainant) dated 08.10.1999, in Crime No. 1263/1999 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of Thirumangalam Police Station, Chennai-101. ii) In the said complaint it had been stated that PW-2 - Senthil, had entrusted a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the appellant (PW-1) on 20.07.1999 to keep it in safe custody for a few d...
Gowri Shankar theatre represented by Its Proprietor, N. Shivaji Rao Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ92Mad
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petition is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 24.07.2007 in W.P. No. 21503/2007 by which the learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has held that the petitioner theatre would continue to be bound by Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952).2. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner is that the appellant has been running a theatre in Vaniyambadi and the number of employees employed in the said theatre was only 4. By mistake the appellant writ petitioner has been making contribution towards Employees' Provident Fund. By order dated 18.4.2007 passed by the second respondent which is impugned in the writ petition, the second respondent has directed the contribution by the appellant saying that when originally the contribution was made under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) even if the number of employees has fallen below, the appell...
Chamundi Steel Castings (India) Ltd. Vs. the Customs Excise and Servic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(165)LC183(Madras)
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. In this civil miscellaneous appeal, the following substantial questions of law are framed for consideration.(i) Whether Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 or Rule 173G(1)(d) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, where it is not the delay in payment of duty on fortnightly basis.(ii) Whether the first respondent - Tribunal is right in holding that Rule 173G(1)(d) of C.E. Rules and/Rule 8 of CE Rules, 2001 are applicable to the present case?2. The appellant is the manufacturer of HSD bars falling under Ch. No. 721490 of Central Excise Tariff. Their products are cleared with their consignment agent, stock transfer sales (depot) and on conversion which are referred as 'outlets'. At the time of clearance of the goods from the factory gate, they adopt the market value as assessable value for payment of duty and subsequently on receipt of information regarding the value at which the three outlets have sold the said p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »