Chennai Court March 2014 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.
M/S. Sabare International Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and export of made-up textile articles falling under Chapter 63 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant filed a refund claim of Rs.18,67,738/- on 23.8.2006 of accumulated credit availed on input service used in the export of goods in terms of Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.3.2004 issued under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Show-cause notice dated 22.11.2006 was issued proposing to reject the refund claim under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It has been alleged that the appellant is manufacturing exempted goods and they are not eligible to avail CENVAT credit under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the appe...
M/S. Veena Processing Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
1. None appears on behalf of the appellant despite notice. On perusal of the records, I find that the matter was fixed for hearing on 12.2.2014 and nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant and the matter was adjourned to 5.3.2014. Today also nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant despite issue of notice. 2. After considering the submission of the learned AR on behalf of the Revenue, it seems that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Hence, I dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution of the appeal....
M/S. Gupta Automobiles, Chennai Vs. Business Ward Vi(2)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Dr. O.K. Narayanan, Vice President 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2009-2010. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX, Chennai passed on 31.10.2012. The appeal arises out of the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 02. The assessee firm is engaged in the business of trading in automobiles and general spare parts. The assessee firm had invested 38 lakhs in REC Bonds on 24.03.2009. This amount of 38 lakhs was received by the assessee firm against surrendering its tenancy rights. The entire amount of 38 lakhs received by the assessee was deposited in REC Bonds, which is a specified investment for claiming exemption on capital gains tax. The assessee claimed deduction under 54EC on the above ground. But the Assessing authority held that the deposit was made after a period of six months and therefore the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption qua the long term capi...
Le Duplex and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Service Tax) ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
1. After hearing both the matters at length, I find that the appeal may be decided at the stage of stay petitions hearing itself. Accordingly, after disposing the stay applications both the appeals are taken up for hearing for disposal. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the adjudicating authority dropped the show-cause notices against both the appellants. Revenue filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Counsel drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the Revenue appeal insofar as the prayer of the Revenue is to set aside the Orders-in-Original and to pass necessary order as it deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. She further drew the attention of the Bench to the operative portion of the impugned order, whereby, the Commissioner (Appeals) ordered that the appeal filed by the Appellant-Department is not completely devoid of merits. The impugned Order-in-Original passed by the lower adjudicating authority lacks merit...
Senthilnathan Chettiar, Chennai Vs. Department of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member: 1. The appeal of the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-VI, Chennai dated 08-01-2013 relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08. 2 I.T.A. No. 1268/Mds/2013 2. The assessee had filed his return of income for the AY. 2007-08 on 06-08-2007 admitting a loss `37,91,151/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') was issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made certain additions/ dis-allowances in the income returned by the assessee. The Assessing Officer apart from other dis-allowances made dis- allowance of `38,83,792/- in respect of interest payments. The assessee had purchased Business Asset, a Theatre at Mount Road, Chennai in the year 2004. The assessee had been screening films in the theatre till the end of the AY.2006-07. In the beginning of AY.2007-08, the assessee...
G.K.College of Education Vs. Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :04. 03.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.Nos.14540 and 14513 of 2013 G.K.College of Education rep.by its Chairman Mr.S.Gnanamani Pandiyampakkam Village Chozhavaram Post Cheyyar Tk., Thiruvannamalai District Pin:631. 701 .. Petitioner in W.P.No.14540 of 2013 Grace College of Education rep.by its Chairman Mr.Gnanamani Nedungunam & Post Vandavasi Taluk Thiruvannamalai District Pin:606. 807 .. Petitioner in W.P.No.14513 of 2013 -vs- The Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University rep.by is Registrar Lady Wellington College Campus Kamarajar Salai Chennai 600 005 .. Respondent in both the W.Ps. W.P.No.14540 of 2013 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to approve the 4 students namely P.Maruthupandian, K.Kavitha, M.Logamithra and B.Vennila of the petitioner institute admitted in B.Ed., course for the academic year 2012-13 so as to enable them...
Ammu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Date ::04. 03.2014 Coram :: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Dhanapalan and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Chockalingam H.C.P. No:2031. of 2013 Ammu W/o. Kumaresan @ Kumar No:44. Kirama Theru Manali Chennai 600 068. ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Govt. Prohibition and Excise Dept. Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai Police Egmore Chennai 600 008. ... Respondents .. .. .. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus praying for a direction to call for the entire records relating to the detention order in Memo No:808. / BDFGISSV / 213 dated 26.08.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce petitioner's husband Kumaresan @ Kumar @ Sorikumar aged about 32 years S/o.Munusamy, the detenue, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, before thi...
Saravanakumar Vs. N.Jayachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 04.03.2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY S.A.Nos.440 & 441 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.2 to 4 in S.A.NO.440 of 2009 S.A.No.440 of 2009: 1.Saravanakumar 2.Thiagaraj 3.Mallika ..Appellants versus 1.N.Jayachandran 2.N.Maheswaran 3.N.Dhandapani 4.R.Krishnasamy 5.V.Anwar 6.Arumugam 7.R.Kanniappan ..Respondents Second Appeals have been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decrees in A.S.No.118 of 2006 and Cross Objections and A.S.No.127 of 2006 dated 28.11.2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, partly reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.Nos.571 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, dated 16.02.2006. S.A.No.441 of 2009: 1. Mallika 2.S.Saravanakumar 3.S.Thiagaraj ..Appellants versus 1.N.Maheswaran 2.N.Dhandapani ..Respondents For Appellants : Mr.P.Valliappan (in both S.As) For Respondents : Mr.T.Madhusudhana Reddy (R1 to R3 & R7 in...
Mahindra World City Developers Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated:04. 03.2014 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, Acting Chief Justice AND The Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARAN W.A.No.564 of 2010 & W.P.Nos.20492 of 2009, 1031 of 2012 and 1385 of 2012 & Connected M.Ps. M/s. Mahindra World City Developers Limited (formerly known as Madhindra Indutrial Park Ltd.) a Company registered under the Companies Act having Registered Officer at Mahindra Towers 17/18, Pattulos Road Chennai-600 002. .. Appellant in W.A.No.564 of 2010 & Petitioner in all the W.Ps vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Industries Department Fort St. George Chennai-600 009. The District Collector Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Mahindra Industrial Park Scheme Melamaiyur ... Respondents 1 to 3 in Chengalpattu. Writ appeal and writ petitions Shree Shetty Sadan Kumar Shetty Rytik Shetty .. Respondents 4 to 6 in W.A.No.564 of 2010 and W.P.No.1...
Lakshminarayanan Vs. Secretary to the Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Date ::04. 03.2014 Coram :: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Dhanapalan and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Chockalingam H.C.P.No.2289 of 2013 Lakshminarayanan S/o. Ramakrishnan No.1, Amman Nagar, Uragadam, Chennai. ... Petitioner .. Vs ..1. The Secretary to the Government, (Home) Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, (Goondas Section), Egmore, Chennai 8. ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus praying to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 19.08.2013 in Memo No.726/BDFGISSV/2013, against the petitioner's friend Selvam, son of Subramani, aged about 24 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set hi...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »