Telangana High Court Judgments — 2013

The tribunal found that the accident was caused by the first respondent's vehicle, which was insured with the appellant. The court corrected the multiplier and enhanced certain compensation heads, modifying the original award.

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by M/s Image Developers Pvt. Ltd. and C. Venkateswara Rao, upholding the lower court's judgments. However, the issue of mesne profits in one specific appeal was to be decided separately.

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by M/s Image Developers Pvt. Ltd. and C. Venkateswara Rao, upholding the lower court's judgments. However, the issue of mesne profits in one specific appeal was to be decided separately.

The High Court followed its previous judgment in a similar batch of appeals. It directed that the net profit be estimated at 2% of estimated sales or 16% of purchase value, whichever is higher.

The High Court recalculated the compensation by considering the deceased's income more accurately and applying appropriate multipliers and conventional heads. The court also upheld the 50% contributory negligence.

The High Court held that the question of law regarding the deletion of interest under Section 234B is answered in favour of the Revenue. However, the authorities are directed to recompute the actual interest payable.

The Tribunal followed a previous High Court order on a similar issue. The appeal was disposed of in line with that precedent.

The Tribunal followed a previous High Court order on a similar matter. The decision hinges on whether poultry sheds qualify as 'plant' for higher depreciation or 'building' for lower depreciation.

The Tribunal modified the question of law to focus on whether secret commissions paid to government employees are deductible. The Court ultimately held that such payments are not deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals in High Courts. Consequently, there was no point in restoring the dismissed petition.

The High Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The primary reason for dismissal was the failure to serve notice on the Respondent even after 21 years from the filing of the appeal. The Court noted that on the last occasion, service was not possible due to deficit stamps. The question of law framed in the appeal was expressly kept open for decision in other appropriate cases. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

The High Court held that an identical question of law had been raised and decided in ITTA No. 75 of 2000 before a Division Bench of the same Court. In that prior case, the Division Bench had answered the question affirmatively in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue through a judgment dated 01.12.2011. Consequently, in the present appeal, the High Court followed the precedent set in ITTA No. 75 of 2000, answering the substantial question of law in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal was disposed of in accordance with this finding. No specific reasoning from the prior judgment is provided, nor is the amount in dispute mentioned. No issue was left undecided.

The High Court declined to entertain the appeals as the tax effect in similar connected cases was below Rs. 1,00,000/-. Following the dismissal of those connected appeals, the present appeal was also dismissed.