Loading High Court cases…
152 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that once penalties are cancelled on the ground of no concealment, the prosecution under Section 276C is automatically quashed. The Supreme Court judgments in K.C. Builders and G.L. Didwania were relied upon.
The High Court held that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the stock discrepancy and that sales outside the books of accounts are considered income. The court found no violation of natural justice or jurisdictional issues, thus not interfering with the revisional authority's findings.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision, based on facts and previous judgments, to be reasonable and rational. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the orders of the appellate authorities.
The tribunal found that while the awarded compensation was on the lower side, it could not enhance it as the claimants had not filed a cross-appeal. The appeal by the insurance company was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide evidence that the trusts were sham. It confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity or illegality.
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, noting the absence of specific allegations against them and the potential misuse of Section 498A. The court emphasized that general allegations against distant relatives, residing separately, are not sufficient.
The High Court enhanced the compensation by reassessing the deceased's monthly income based on income tax returns and applying relevant multipliers and heads. The court also quantified interest on the enhanced amount.
The High Court held that the defendant admitted his signature on the promissory note and cheques, and failed to provide credible rebuttal evidence to disprove the transaction or the part-payment endorsement. The contentions regarding the plaintiff's money lender's license and income tax returns were found to be legally untenable.
The High Court found the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income to be on the lower side. It recomputed the compensation by enhancing the monthly income and applying relevant multipliers and conventional heads.
The High Court held that while the plaintiff proved payment of the advance, he failed to continuously demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract until the decree. The Court found insufficient evidence of the plaintiff's means to arrange the balance sale consideration.
The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petitions at the show cause notice stage, as alternative statutory remedies were available. The appeals were dismissed, but the appellants were granted 60 days to file appeals before the appellate authority.
The Tribunal found that the petitioner failed to establish a conclusive link with her claimed father, Kashem Sheikh, due to insufficient and untrustworthy documentary evidence. The High Court agreed that the evidence, including a PAN card and a Gaon Panchayat certificate, was not sufficient to prove her Indian citizenship.
The Tribunal rightly decided the issues against the Insurance Company. However, the compensation awarded for loss of consortium and to other claimants was found to be meager and was enhanced.
The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petitions at the show cause notice stage, as alternative statutory remedies were available. The appeals were dismissed, but the appellants were granted 60 days to file appeals before the appellate authority.
The Tribunal erred in not adding future prospects to the established income and in using a lower multiplier. The compensation was enhanced by adding 25% for future prospects and applying a multiplier of 14.
The High Court found that the deceased's monthly earnings could be safely believed at Rs. 9,000, and directed that 40% be added for future prospects. The court also applied the appropriate multiplier and awarded amounts for consortium and loss of estate.
The Tribunal found contradictions in the plaintiff's evidence regarding the execution of the agreement and the amounts paid. It held that the payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- was not substantiated and that the agreement's integrity was compromised, potentially due to fraud.
The tribunal found that the insurance company failed to adduce evidence to support its claim of discrepancy and did not examine the owner of the identified offending vehicle. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that since the appeal's monetary value was below the prescribed ceiling and did not fall under any exceptions, it should be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that sales tax and excise duty should be excluded from total turnover for Section 80HHC relief. It also held that net interest, not gross interest, should be excluded under clause (baa) of the Explanation to Section 80HHC.
The Tribunal held that sales tax and excise duty should be excluded from total turnover for Section 80HHC relief. It also held that net interest, not gross interest, should be excluded under clause (baa) of the Explanation to Section 80HHC.
The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petitions at the show cause notice stage, as alternative statutory remedies were available. The appeals were dismissed, but the appellants were granted 60 days to file appeals before the appellate authority.
The High Court held that there was no evidence of conspiracy against two of the appellants, and thus they were wrongly convicted under Section 120B IPC. The court also found that Section 27 of the Arms Act was not applicable as the firearm was not a prohibited one.
The High Court held that degrees from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, with specific course names, were recognized up to a certain date based on previous government orders. Therefore, the denial of benefits based on non-recognition was incorrect.
The tribunal held that the scheme to pay regular salary was intended for doctors pursuing PG courses within Rajasthan due to a scarcity of specialists. Since the petitioner pursued his course outside the state, he was not covered by the scheme, and thus, there was no willful disobedience of the court order.