Loading High Court cases…
214 orders · Page 2 of 5
The High Court held that the insurer is liable to satisfy the award as the claimants are third parties, but upheld the insurer's right of recovery from the owner. The appeals filed by the owner, driver, and insurer were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that AMCs established under the Andhra Pradesh Markets Act come within the purview of 'charitable purpose' as defined under Section 2(15). Therefore, they are eligible for registration under Section 12A/12AA.
The tribunal held that the unspent amount in the PLA is considered 'excise duty' paid in advance. Therefore, the provisions for refund and interest under Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act are applicable.
The High Court found no error in determining the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 6,000 due to lack of documentary evidence. However, it modified the award to include future prospects, correct dependency deduction, and increased amounts for loss of consortium, parental consortium, and funeral expenses.
The Tribunal held that revenue records do not confer title and the plaintiff failed to produce any document of title. The burden of proof of ownership was correctly placed on the plaintiff, who could not establish title.
The High Court noted that a previous High Court decision in a similar case remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the genuineness of transactions. The court also observed that the CIT(A) had already decided the remanded appeal partly in favor of the assessee, which was not challenged by the department.
The tribunal modified the compensation awarded, enhancing the rate of interest and including compensation for loss of consortium for the claimants. The insurance company was directed to deposit the modified award amount.
The High Court held that the amendment to Section 158(3) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which granted Bhumiswami rights to lessees, was intended to be retrospective and beneficial. Therefore, the alienation made by defendant No. 1 was barred by this provision.
The tribunal held that the testimony of the prosecution witness, even after being cross-examined by the prosecution, was not discredited and could still be believed. The tribunal found the facts of the case distinguishable from other cited cases where acquittals were granted.
The Tribunal's estimation of net profit at 1% of estimated sales was considered too low. The Court held that a reasonable estimate of net profit should be 2% of the estimated sales or 16% of the purchase value, whichever is higher.
The High Court held that the sale consideration received by the assessee from the transfer of shares and rights entitlement of debentures is income from capital gains, not business income. The court also ruled on the entitlement to set off losses from capital gains.
The tribunal decided to enhance the compensation amount based on Supreme Court judgments regarding income calculation and future prospects. The original award was modified to reflect a higher compensation.
The Tribunal's estimation of net profit at 1% of estimated sales was considered too low. The Court held that a reasonable estimate of net profit should be 2% of the estimated sales or 16% of the purchase value, whichever is higher.
The tribunal decided that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect does not exceed the prescribed monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed based on the circular.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed, considering the CBDT circular and the tax effect being below the prescribed limit for High Court appeals.
The High Court held that if the assessee follows the cash system of accounting, the chargeable interest must also be computed on the cash basis. Interest accrued in a previous year but paid in a subsequent year would not be subject to tax if the cash system is followed.