Chennai Court October 2010 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.
The Director of Income-tax (Exemptions). Vs. the Willington Charitable ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2010
1. In view of the common issues involved in all these appeals between the same parties, they have been taken up together for passing a common judgment.2.Challenging the orders of the Tribunal for the assessment years, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03 and 2005-06, respectively, the Revenue has come forward to file these appeals by raising the following substantial questions of law:"(i)When Section 11(1) read with Section 11(4) of the Income Tax Act exempts income from the business undertaking of the Trust to the extent it is applied for charitable or religious purpose, can Section 11(4)(A) of the Income Tax Act can be construed to have been incorporated for the very same purpose or to be construed restricting the scope of Section 11(4) of the Income Tax Act. (ii)When the Tribunal reverses the findings of the lower authorities to hold that a joint reading of Section 11(1), 11(4) and 11(4)(a) would mean to give exemption of the income from the business of the Trust irr...
R.Nataraj .. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by Its Chief Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2010
1. The petitioner seeks for the issuance of a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 9th respondent in O.A.No.245 of 2010 dated 8.3.2010 as well as the order of the 2nd respondent relating to Police Note No.SC/3/2010 dated 8.1.2010, to quash the same and direct the first respondent to follow the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prakash Singh vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 1 and Note 2 of G.O.Ms.No.1403 dated 16.10.2008 and G.O. (D) No.99 dated 30.1.2009 and select the Director General of Police of the State, Head of the Police Force, from amongst the panel of three senior most Director Generals of Police eligible as on 8.1.2010 and consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the said post.2. When the Writ Petition was moved on 7.4.2010, the writ petitioner prayed for an interim order in M.P.No.2 of 2010 to stay the order passed by the 9th respondent dated 8.3.2010 in O.A.No.245 of 2010 and the order of the 2nd respondent in...
M/S.Vijaykumar and Co., (Jute) Private Limited. Vs. Tamil Nadu Co-oper ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2010
1. The Appellant / Defendant has projected this Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.04.2000 in O.S.No.4773 of 1996 passed by the Learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.2. On an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court viz., the Learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, while passing the Judgment in O.S.No.4773 of 1996 on 20.04.2000, has among other things observed that 'the Respondent / Plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount with interest and accordingly, decreed the suit as prayed for with costs and further has granted future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.' 3. Before the trial Court, 1 to 5 issues have been framed for adjudication in the main case. On the side of Respondent / Plaintiff, witness P.W.1 has been examined and Exs.A1 to A71 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant / Defendant, witness D.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B1 to B14 have been marked. 4. Being dissatisfied wit...
S.Thiyanayaguy Ammal ... Vs. Bureau of Immigration, (Mha) Government o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2010
1. The petitioner has approached this court seeking mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission to her son Mr.Alain Anandane to visit Pondicherry and Chennai for a few days.2. This Court considering the age of the petitioner who is in the evening of her life, suggested the respondents' counsel to find out whether there was any possibility of allowing the petitioner's son to land in Chennai and to allow the petitioner to meet her son in the Airport itself for a few hours so that the mother who gave birth the son could have the satisfaction of meeting her son. Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, submitted that Home Ministry is the competent authority to take a deccision in this regard. Hence this court suomotu impleaded the Secretary, Home Affairs, Union of India as third respondent to the writ petition by order dated 2.8.2010. Para 3 of the order of this Court is extracted as follows: "3. Mr.Srinivasan for Mr.T.P.R.Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 on ins...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli Vs. Karur Kcp Packaging ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2010
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the issue in dispute for fresh decision by the adjudicating authority, on the ground that with the amendment to Section 35A (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power of remand. 2. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice. Hence I heard ld. SDR and perused the records. 3. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Kodai Automobiles Ltd. - Final Order No.930/10 dt. 25.8.10 that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand after the amendment to Section 35A (3) w.e.f 11.5.2001 under the Finance Bill, 2001. I, therefore, agree with the Revenue that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have remanded the case to the adjudicating authority. However, in the absence of any challenge to the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that adjudication order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, I hold that this is a fit case for fresh decision...
N. Subbaiah, [Ex-sepoy â I.D.Card No.Ap.0049231-asc(Mt)-6549632] ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2010
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) Leave granted. 2. It is an unfortunate case, in which an octogenarian, who has longed in the corridors of the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh from 2006 by filing W.P.No.4275 of 2006 for his legitimate claim for disability pension, is fortunate to live till today to see the following order in his favour. The said Writ Petition has been transferred to this Regional Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal in accordance with Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and reassigned T.A.No.91 of 2009. 3. The short facts as narrated in the affidavit to the petition sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:- The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the third respondent vide proceedings No.6984/T-V/SP dated 20.04.2005 rejecting his invalid pension/disability pension on the ground that the petitioner has not rendered 15 years of minimum qualifying service. After completing his SSLC, the petitioner was enrolled as a Sepoy in ...
M/S Sri Rama Vilas Services Limited. Vs. the Tamilnadu Taxation Specia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2010
1. The petitioner is the assessee. The challenge is to the order of the Special Tribunal dated 20.6.2002. By the impugned order, the Special Tribunal held that the exemption granted under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act was for the penultimate sale and after construction of the body by the assessee, the product has become a different one from the chassis which was entrusted with the assessee by M/s Ashok Leyland Limited and as such, after the conversion of the chassis as a bus, the petitioner was not entitled for the exemption granted under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In fact, the Special Tribunal, while passing its orders, referred to a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Azad Coach Builders Private Limited v. State of Karnataka reported in 123 STC 473. That very decision of the Karnataka High Court was taken on appeal by the State of Karnataka in Civil Appeal Nos.5616-5617 of 2000 and Civil Appeal Nos.6594-6598 of 2000 (State of Karnataka v. Azad Coach Bu...
Munusami Gramani .. Vs. Rohaiyabeebi ..
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2010
1. This Second appeal arises against the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.15 of 1984 dated 21.10.2002 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam reversing the judgment and decree dated 07.01.1984 made in O.S.No.2328 of 1979 on the file of District Munsif, Tindivanam.2 The averments made in the plaint are as follows:The suit property and other properties are originally belonged to the family of one Ramabushnam Gramani. There was a civil dispute between Lakshminatha Gramani and Ramabushnam Gramani in respect of the suit property and other properties in S.A.No.752 of 1966 on the file of High Court, Madras. A compromise was effected and in terms of joint endorsement, a compromise decree was passed on 01.02.1971. In the said compromise decree, in the suit S.No.R.S.208/3 0.10 cents including the suit property was given to Ramabushnam Gramani and he was in possession and enjoyment of 10 cents allotted to him. On 07.09.1978, out of 0.10 cents, he sold the suit property in favou...
M/S. Churchand#8217;s Auxilliary for Social Action Vs. Cce Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The appellants claim for refund of duty paid by the manufacturer of cement and steel, which were used by them (an NGO) in construction of houses for Tsunami affected districts of State of Tamil Nadu have been restricted to the duty actually paid on cement and steel. It is the contention of the appellants that they are entitled to higher refund in terms of Notification No. 32/05 dated 17.08.05. 2. On hearing both sides, we find that this issue stands settled against the appellants by Tribunal’s Final Order No. 1030, 1031/10 dated 23.09.10 in their own case. The relevant portion of the Tribunal’s earlier order is reproduced herein below:- “In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with section 91 and section 93 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 (23 of 2004), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts ce...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Srf Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2010
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. Revenue is aggrieved by the Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the differential duty demand of Rs. 2,23,61,637.45 confirmed against the assessees as a result of valuation of nylon waste yarn arising out during the course of manufacture of final products viz., Nylon Chips, Nylon Tyre Cord Fabrics etc., and captively consumed. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demands covering the period from 01.07.88 to 31.08.94 (where the demand is Rs. 1,66,33,176.45) and 01.09.94 to 30.01.96 (differential duty demand of Rs. 1,57,28,461) on the ground that the entire issue emanated from an Audit Objection raised by the CERA and the same was closed as seen from the CERA letter dated 19.08.2002. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have set aside the demands on the sole basis of settlement of issue by the CERA. The Commissioner (Appeals) was required to give a finding on the merit of the issue namely as t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »