Telangana High Court Judgments — 2017

The tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. The court modified the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, adjusting amounts for loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral charges based on established legal precedents.

The High Court found that the Tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence to the deceased by overlooking the testimony of an eyewitness and giving undue deference to the investigating officer. It also noted errors in calculating future prospects and applying the multiplier.

The tribunal decided that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect does not exceed the revised monetary limits specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the revised monetary limits specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appellant was granted liberty to revive the appeal if it fell outside the circular's ambit.

The Tribunal erred in allowing the claim only in part. Following the principle of acceptance in previous and subsequent years, and relying on Madras High Court decisions, the expenditure is allowable in favour of the assessee.

The Court dismissed the S.J.C. based on the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. The appellant can revive the S.J.C. if the case falls outside the ambit of the circular.

The High Court held that the proviso inserted into Section 18(4) of the JVAT Act and Rule 26(11A) of the JVAT Rules were unworkable and could not be given effect to between September 23, 2015, and February 16, 2017, due to the lack of prescribed machinery provisions. Consequently, no forfeiture of ITC could take place during this period.

The tribunal held that CAT-5/CAT-6 cables are computer peripherals and should be taxed under the specific entry for IT products, not the residuary head. The revenue failed to discharge its onus to prove otherwise, and subsequent amendments clarified the tax treatment.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the revenue to revive it if necessary. The court clarified that the withdrawal does not affirm the Tribunal's order on merits and leaves the legal issue open.

The High Court found that the trial court's judgment lacked reasoning for acquittal, despite acknowledging an excess income. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration from the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C questioning.

The High Court partly allowed both appeals. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal was reduced, and the compensation amount was enhanced. The respondents were directed to pay the enhanced compensation jointly and severally.

The Tribunal erred in not properly considering the deceased's pay slips and income tax certificate to determine monthly income. The appellate court recalculated the compensation based on a higher monthly income, leading to an enhanced award.

The tribunal found the accident was caused by the negligence of respondent no. 1 and awarded compensation. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the compensation amount, and dismissed the cross-objections.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the revised monetary limits stipulated in the circular.

The High Court held that an assessment order vitiated by non-compliance with natural justice is not void ab initio and can be remanded. The Tribunal's direction to the Assessing Officer not to make additions without direct evidence linking the assessee to on-money payments was also clarified.