Chennai Court June 2012 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.
Ms.Carborundum Universal Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
PRAYER: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, Madras dated 17.7.2001 made in I.T.A.No.2426/92.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The assessee is on appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1989-90, raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in holding that deduction under Section 32AB has to be allowed from the profits for the purpose of determining the relief under Section 80HH and 80I?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal ought not to have held that relief under Section 32AB relatable to Plant and Machinery installed in other units should not be deducted from the profits of the new industrial undertakings for the purpose of computing relief under Section 80HH and 80I?3. Whether on the f...
Sri.Raj Kumar KhemkA. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Prayer: Appeals filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "B" Bench, dated 16.6.2005 in ITA Nos. 326 & 327/Mds/2000, under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1995-96.O R D E R(The Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. )1. The appeals have been filed by the assessees who happened to be brothers, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1995- 96. The following are the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals respectively :- 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the addition of Rs.32,49,000 under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of unexplained investments in shares of NEPC Micon Limited ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the addition of Rs.7,47,000 under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of unexplained investments in shares of NEPC Micon Limited ?2. The assessee i...
Colour Yarns Limited. Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'C' dated 13th May 2005 in I.T.A.No.1029/Mds/2001.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The assessee is on appeal as against the order of the Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1996-97, raising the following substantial question of law:-"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the tariff subsidy specifically given to meet the cost of power of the industrial undertaking is liable to be excluded in computing the deduction admissible under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act 1961 ?2. It is seen from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee received operational subsidy from Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to an extent of Rs. 9,57,330. Admittedly, the subsidy was given not for establishing the industrial unit but the same was given in the nature ...
A.K.Syed Ali. Vs. A.K.Yarab Jan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC. as against the judgment and decree, dated 31.01.2006, passed by the I Additional District Court, Salem, in A.S.No.128 of 2004, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 30.12.2002, passed in I.A.No.572 of 1996 in O.S.No.653 of 1992, by the Principal Sub-Court, Salem.J U D G M E N T1. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendants as against the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional District Judge, Salem, in A.S.No.128 of 2004, dated 31.01.2006, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, in I.A.No.572 of 1996 in O.S.No.653 of 1992, dated 30.12.2002.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the second appeal are given as under:-The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.653 of 1992 seeking to divide the suit properties into 104 shares with all equities and to allot 76 separate shares in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction re...
M.Natarajan. Vs. the District and Adi Dravidar and Tribal.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
PRAYER IN W.P.No.5758 of 2012:This writ petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.2120 of 2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the second respondent vide Na.Ka.141/2001 A, dated 15.03.2001 in so far as the the petitioner is concerned.PRAYER IN W.P.No.5759 of 2012:This writ petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.2120 of 2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the first respondent to settle the retirement benefits such as Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, Annual increment, encashment of earned leave, Special Provident Fund, etc. after deducting the recovery amount of Rs.1,05,979 (Rupees one lakh five thousand nine hundred and seventy nine only) ordered by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.141/2001/A, dated 15.03.2001.COMMON ORDER1. This order shall dispose of W.P.No.5758 &...
Sekar. Vs. Pattaikarar Alias Palaniappa Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC. as against the judgment and decree, dated 18.10.2005, passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Namakkal, in A.S.No.139 of 2001, reversing judgment and decree, dated 08.08.2001, passed in O.S.No.171 of 1999, by the Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal.J U D G M E N T1. The present second appeal has been brought by the plaintiff/appellant herein, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, in A.S.No.139 of 2001, dated 18.10.2005, in and by which, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Namakkal, in O.S.No.171 of 1999, dated 08.08.2001, was reversed.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the second appeal are given as under:-The plaintiff/appellant herein claimed to have purchased the suit property by registered sale deed, dated 11.03.1992. Even before purchasing the suit property in the year 1992, the plaintiff has also further claimed that the pathway, which is m...
K. Karthik. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of father of the petitioner C.Krishnamurthy and a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the mother of the petitioner K.Chitra to the petitioner and to pass further suitable orders on the facts and circumstances of the case.O R D E R1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of father of the petitioner C. Krishnamurthy and a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation for the death of mother of the petitioner K.Chitra and to pass further suitable orders on the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows: (a) The petitioner, while he was a minor, at the age of 14 years, ...
M.Ranganathan. Vs. Radha Alias Chinna Thambi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
This civil revision petition is preferred under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code as against the order and decreetal order dated 14.11.2011 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gingee in I.A.No.55 of 2011 in unnumbered A.S....of 2011.ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. This civil revision petition is focussed as against the order and decreetal order dated 14.11.2011 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gingee in I.A.No.55 of 2011 in unnumbered A.S....of 2011.3. The facts as uncurtained in this revision could be encapsulated thus:The suit for partition was filed by the respondent/plaintiff and a preliminary decree was passed; subsequently a final decree application was also filed and it is getting processed. While so, the revision petitioner herein did choose to present the appeal memorandum along with an application to get the delay of 336 days condoned in filing the appeal as against the preliminary decree. The said delay application was dismissed after hearing both sides. Being...
K.Moorthy. Vs. the Chairman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 24.11.2011 with regard to promotion of the petitioner as Junior Engineer Electrical Grade II on par with his immediate junior, who was promoted as Junior Engineer Electrical Grade II, in the light of the order passed in W.P.No.43061/2002, W.P.No.39659/04, W.P.No.39660/04 batch, dated 16.12.2010.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 24.11.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Cou...
K.Leelavathi. Vs. Paneerselvam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC. as against the judgment and decree, dated 24.08.2006, passed by the Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai, in A.S.No.59 of 2006, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 20.10.2005 passed in O.S.No.202 of 2005, by the Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai.J U D G M E N T1. The present second appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the second appeal are given as under:- The plaintiff/respondent herein, who was working in the appellants' school for more than 25 years, was issued with a show cause notice framing four charges on 13.10.2004, calling for an explanation from the plaintiff/respondent herein. On receipt of the same, he had also sent his explanations. But, all of a sudden, without holding any enquiry, the defendants/appellants herein had terminated the service of the plaintiff and to that effect, issued termination order, dated 18.05.2005, as per the resolution...
- ‹ Prev
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 66
- Next ›
- Last »