Chennai Court September 2009 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vtm Limited

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Mad)70; [2009]319ITR336(Mad)

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The Revenue has come forward with this appeal, raising the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of additional depreciation on windmill Under Section 32(1)(iia)?(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that generation of power by windmill would amount to manufacture or production of any article or thing?2. We heard Ms. Pushya Sitaraman, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant. The learned Counsel in his submissions contended that the Tribunal under similar circumstances earlier disallowed the additional depreciation claimed under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, whereas by the impugned order, the Tribunal has taken a diplomatic opposite view and on this ground itself the order is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel then contended that the additional depreciation was claimed on t...

Tci Distribution Centres Ltd. Rep. by Its Authorised Signatory Vs. the ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]153CompCas437(Mad)

M. Chockalingam, J.1. All these appeals challenge a common order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 13.04.2009 made in C.A. No. 1953 to 1956 of 2008 in C.A. No. 1983 of 2007 in C.P. No. 526 of 2000.2. Pending the winding up proceedings in the matter of M/s.Fidelity Industries Limited (in liquidation) in C.P. No. 526 of 2000, the Official Liquidator, High Court Madras, made C.A. No. 1983 of 2007 for the following reliefs:(a) To open the valuation report and fix the reserve price for the vacant land at Sriperumpudur and to permit the Official Liquidator to sell the property through this Hon'ble Court;(b) to permit the Official Liquidator to sell the property at Gandhi Nagar, Adyar by taking the earlier reserve price already fixed by this Hon'ble Court as the present upset price for sale of the same;(c) to permit the Official Liquidator to invite sealed tenders through advertisement in the newspapers specified in para 9 of this report, and to pay the expenses of the advertise...

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited Vs. Chief ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]319ITR430(Mad)

R.S. Ramanathan, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioner, in both the writ petitions, is the State Government Transport Corporation and aggrieved by the assessment orders framed by the fourth and fifth respondent, respectively, under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the year 2001-02 to 2005-06, the petitioner filed appeals before the third respondent on January 21, 2009, and the appeals are pending before the authorities. The petitioner also applied for stay of the assessment order for the year 2004-2005 and that is also pending.3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that various divisions of the Transport Corporation in Karaikudi, Trichy and Pudukottai got merged with the Kumbakonam division, by the order of the Company Law Board, dated December 30, 2003, with effect from April 1, 2001, and the respondents interpreted the amalgamation differently, resulting in multiplicity of the assessment orders against which appea...

R. Muthukrishnan Vs. the Manager Canara Bank, Nri Branch, Chennai

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J. 1. The petitioner as complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) for certain relief, which we are not concerned at present. In the said Forum, as reported, there is only one member, though the Act contemplates two members to preside over alongwith the President of the District Forum. 2. The petitioner / Complainant filed this application seeking transfer of his case in CC No.122/2007 from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) to the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) since the District Forum, Chennai (North) is having two members and the Forum is functioning with full corum. 3. The petitioner in person submitted that under Sub Sec.(1) of Section 10 of the Act, the Forum should consist of a President and two other members to decide the case, but the District Forum, Chennai (South) does consist of a President and one Member only and in this view they cannot constitute ...

D. Gurusamy Vs. the Director Government Institute of Rehabilitation Me ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ556

ORDERD. Hariparanthaman, J.1. The Original Application in O.A. No. 1086 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') is now Writ Petition in W.P. No. 5703 of 2007 before this Court.2. Heard Mr. V. Gangatharan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. C.K. Vishnu Priya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.3. The petitioner was sponsored by the District Employment Officer, Chennai -600 020 through his letter dated 21.05.1988 for the post of Substitute Worker in the Respondent Establishment. He was selected and included in the list of Substitute Workers and posted to work in the leave vacancies of basic servants.4. While so, the petitioner was appointed, as Gardener, on regular basis in the scale of Rs. 750-12-870-14-940 by the respondent by an order dated 01.04.1992. However, the respondent passed an order dated 11.03.1994 terminating the services of the petitioner to accommodate one Thiru.T.Murugan, whose remov...

S. Kannan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to the Gov ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ217

ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings made in Memo R. No. 87355/V3/04, dated 22.09.2005, passed by the second respondent, quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to include his name in the panel and promote him to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade-I, with all attendant benefits.2. Petitioner was appointed as Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade-II, on 27.12.2000, in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Coimbatore (North). Thereafter, on 06.06.2005, he was transferred to the Enforcement Wing and posted in the office of the Joint Commissioner, Chennai, namely, third respondent. His next promotion is to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade-I. While so, the second respondent, in his office proceedings, which are impugned herein, dated 22.09.2005, framed three charges against the petitioner under Section 17 (b) of The T...

Mani Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax-i

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]320ITR472(Mad)

ORDERT.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the respondent dated 06.03.2006 and for a consequential direction to allow the petition for waiver of interest filed by the petitioner on 18.07.2005.2. The petitioner, an income tax assessee, is engaged in the business of collecting entrance fees from the markets controlled by the Melur Municipality, Madurai District. He is also a civil contractor and a real estate agent and also carrying on agricultural operations. A search was conducted by the Income Tax department on 05.03.1997 in the business premises of the petitioner. Consequent upon search and seizure operation a notice under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act (in short, Act) was issued on 31.03.1997, requiring the petitioner to prepare a true and correct return of his total income including the undisclosed income in respect of which he is assessable for the block period commencing ...

P. Ramankutty Menon and P. Unnikrishnan Vs. the Commissioner, Tiruvott ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1441

K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The respective unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. Nos. 137 and 41 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvottiyur, who also lost in A.S. Nos. 53 and 51 of 2006 on the file of the Fast Track Court No. IV and Additional District Court, Ponneri, are the appellants in S.A. Nos. 449 and 626 of 2009 respectively.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.3. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 137 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruvottiyur, for a decree declaring that the enhancement of property tax in pursuance of the special notice dated 30.09.1999 is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking any coercive steps to collect the enhanced tax. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 41 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruvottiyur, for ...

The Special Officer Manapad Catholic Thiruchendur Taluk Vs. D.S.S. Pal ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J. 1. The 1st opposite party aggrieved by the order of the lower Forum has come to this Appellate Commission for redressal. 2. The 1st respondent as complainant has approached the District Forum for redressal, against the appellant and the 2nd opposite party as if there was deficiency in service since the appellant/1st respondent failed to return the deposit amount with interest thereon as agreed, on maturity. 3. The 1st respondent while sought for redressal before the District Forum as complainant, alleged in his petition that on 10.8.2001 he had deposited a sum of Rs.10000/- with the appellant/1st opposite party, who agreed to pay interest after 3 years on maturity on 10.8.2004, but despite the maturity period is over and demand was made by issuing notice, the 1st opposite party / appellant failed to pay the amount to the petitioner which amount to deficiency in service and in this view, the opposite parties should be directed to return the amount as claimed in the...

Savariammal Vs. Thangamani and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1228

ORDERAruna Jagadeesan, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff against the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Trichy dated 21.8.2003 in AS. No. 341/1994, suo motu appointing the second Advocate Commissioner to measure the properties.2. The brief facts, which are essential for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition, are as follows:The petitioner filed the suit in OS. No. 1657/1990 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchy for declaration and mandatory injunction i.e. to declare that the B-Schedule property belongs to her absolutely and for removal of the construction made by the respondents/ defendants over the said property.3. The plaintiff claims title to 4 cents out of 8 cents by way of a settlement deed dated 8.10.1984 executed by her parents and she was put in possession of the same and the remaining 4 cents was sold to the respondents' predecessor by the original owner Mariaselvathammal. According to the petitioner, the resp...