Loading High Court cases…
374 orders · Page 5 of 8
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including polishing and converting marble blocks into polished slabs and tiles, constituted 'manufacture' or 'production' under Section 80IA. The High Court affirmed this view, stating that 'production' has a wider connotation than 'manufacture'.
The tribunal decided that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs before the ITAT should not be filed. The current appeal, having a tax effect below this limit, was dismissed.
The tribunal erred in reversing the CIT (Appeals)'s order solely on the presumption under Section 132(4A) without corroborative evidence linking the loose papers to the assessee. The presumption under Section 132(4A) is not absolute and requires corroboration.
The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of tainted money, divorced from the circumstances of its payment, is insufficient to convict without reliable substantive evidence.
The tribunal found contributory negligence on both the deceased and the tanker driver, apportioning 60% negligence to the driver and 40% to the deceased. The compensation amount was enhanced, and the insurance company was held liable for 60% of the enhanced award.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the cross-objections, finding the claimant entitled to enhanced compensation. The appeal by the Insurance Company was dismissed, and the cross-objections were allowed, significantly increasing the awarded amount.
The High Court dismissed one appeal entirely. For the other appeal, it allowed it in part by reducing the rate of interest awarded on the principal amount from 12% to 6% per annum from the date of decree until realization.
The High Court found no justification to interfere with the Single Judge's decision. They agreed that the government's policy regarding extensions, based on its needs, cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the appellants.
The High Court found that the ITAT and CIT(A) orders were perverse as they did not properly consider the material on record, including RBI communications regarding CBDT instructions on Form 16. The issue of delay attributable to the assessee was not thoroughly examined.
The High Court dismissed the appeal suit for default due to the absence of instructions from the appellants. No costs were awarded.