Loading High Court cases…
358 orders · Page 7 of 8
The High Court found that the ESIC failed to provide sufficient opportunity and evidence to prove functional integrality. The court noted the significant delay in proceedings and the lack of necessary documentation from the ESIC.
The High Court held that religious institutions, such as temples, churches, and mosques, which are not financed or funded by the government, do not fall within the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Consequently, the impugned memo from the Commissioner of Endowments was set aside.
The High Court held that a direction for investigation by the CBI or SIT cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is only permissible in exceptional cases with national ramifications. Since no cognizable offense was found and the petitioner failed to establish an exceptional case, the petition was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence presented. Therefore, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The High Court followed a previous co-ordinate bench decision. It held that the AO's estimate of sales and GP rate was not justified, and the CIT(A) and Tribunal's findings were reasonable.
The High Court held that since the chargesheet was filed only against the dumper driver and not the deceased, there was no contributory negligence. The court also directed additions for future prospects and enhanced conventional head compensation.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the deceased's income, stating that the income tax return was a valid piece of evidence. The court also noted that while future prospects and conventional heads were not fully considered, it would not enhance the compensation in the absence of an appeal by the claimants.
The tribunal decided that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect does not exceed the revised monetary limits specified in the circular. The appeal was dismissed based on this circular.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the revised monetary limits specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appellant can revive the appeal if it falls outside the circular's ambit.
The tribunal decided that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limits should not be filed. Consequently, the current appeal was dismissed based on this circular.
The Tribunal erred in granting exemption for cement used in biogas plants. Cement is an ingredient and not a biogas plant or renewable energy equipment itself. Therefore, it is not eligible for exemption under the relevant Government Orders.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as per the Commissioner's request. The appellant was granted liberty to revive the appeal if it fell outside the scope of the circular.
The High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision to enhance the compensation amount. It found that the Single Judge had properly considered the deceased's income and family contribution when making the enhancement.
The Tribunal found that the claimant's case was a cooked-up story, suggesting collusion between the claimant and the owner of the offending car. The court noted suspicious circumstances, including the owner's failure to come forward earlier and his absence from the witness box, which weakened the claimant's case.
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 Tribunal was justified in setting aside the Commissioner's order, finding it based on surmises and conjectures rather than concrete evidence. The Court held that the CIT failed to demonstrate that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests, a prerequisite for invoking Section 263.
The tribunal held that the Chief Commissioner's reliance on a reversed High Court judgment was erroneous. Investments in infrastructure development for the institution itself are permissible.
The Tribunal's finding of 60% contributory negligence was set aside, holding the claimants entitled to 100% of the compensation. The award was re-computed to include future prospects and a higher conventional head amount, significantly enhancing the compensation.
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding on the deceased's monthly income and increased the compensation by considering future prospects, personal expenses, and conventional heads like loss of estate, funeral charges, and filial consortium.
The High Court held that the complainant failed to prove his proprietorship of Baba Enterprises and that the debt might be time-barred. Therefore, the complaint was not maintainable, and the trial court's acquittal was justified.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limits for filing departmental appeals. The circular specifies that appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20,00,000 before the Appellate Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that both the appellant (Sunrise Traders) and the Railways were responsible for contributory negligence. The Railways were directed to pay 50% of the claimed compensation for the damaged goods and refund the demurrage charges.
The Tribunal, considering the CBDT Circular and the low tax effect, decided to dismiss the appeals as not pressed. However, it clarified that substantial questions of law are left open for future proceedings and the Revenue can move to recall the order if exceptions apply.
The Tribunal correctly assessed negligence, validity of insurance, and quantum of compensation. The court found no illegality or perversity in the Tribunal's findings and dismissed all appeals.