Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways

3 SCC 210Reported decision2014#24450 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2016.

Judgments citing Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 vs. VISHU IMPEX PVT LTD.

ITA/431/2016HC Delhi09 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…hma Kumari (supra), and Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, has been noticed and since both were rendered by benches of co-equal strength it stands referred to a larger bench in cases reported as Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways (2014) 3 SCC 210, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa & Ors. (2015) 9 SCC 166, and Shashikala v. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150. This court, thus, by decision dated 22.01.2016 MAC.APP.No.956/2012, titled Sunil Kumar Vs. Pyar Mohd. & Ors., has decided to follow the law declared by the ruling prior in time till the larger bench renders its decision for…

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV, vs. Parnika Constructions P. Ltd.,

Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITTA/73/2014HC Telangana01 Jul 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

…rned Tribunal by the appellants to sustain the medical claim and attendant charge. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 210, at paras 23 and 24 which are profitably quoted hereunder:- “23. In view of the discussions that have preceded, we hold that the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation as set out in the Table below: SI. No. Head Amount as per High Court (in Rs.) Amount as per this Court (in Rs.) (i) Loss of income 6,19,500.00 10,53,1…

GALILEO INTERNATIONAL INC vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of in above terms

ITA/467/2012HC Delhi25 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…. No.467/2012 & 657/2012 Page 8 of 14 Kumari (supra) was not brought to the notice of their Lordships. 15. The divergence of opinion was noted by another three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 3 SCC 210. In paras 14 and 15, the Supreme Court observed as under:- “14. Certain parallel developments will now have to be taken note of. In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2009) 13 SCC 422 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 143 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1044] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court while considering the following questions took the view that the issue(s)…