Singh Ram v. Nirmala and Pappu v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Arn

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/S Janapriya Properties Private Limited

Appeal stands disposed of

Bench: Hon’Ble Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund

…th liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle (Respondent 2 herein). We are inclined to allow the appeal to this limited extent, keeping in mind the exposition in Singh Ram v. Nirmala and Pappu v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Arn.[(2018) 3 SCC 208. 13. The amount of Rs.5,000/- has been correctly assessed. The deceased in the case of Rani and others (Supra) was a mechanic, whereas the deceased of this instant case, was an Advocate and an ex-MLA, whose income cannot be Page No.# 9/10 considered to be at par with the income of a mechanic, who was not shown as a regular mechanic in an…

The Commissioner of Income Tax III Hyderabad vs. M/s. Vasant Organics Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Prefab Gratings Limited

Bench: Honourable Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury Judgment & Order (Cav) Date : 24-05-2019

…ant case in that the breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle was so fundamental that he could have noticed the invalidness of the driving licence on perusal of the licence itself. 35. In Pappu and others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another, (2018) 3 SCC 208, direction was also to the insurer to pay the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the claimants in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law taking into consideration the decision and applying the dictum in Swaran Singh (supra). The insurer was absolved from the liab…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri S. Nanda Gopal Reddy

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part

…ot absolving the insurance company of the liability to pay the compensation amount. In this respect, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pappu v. Vinod Kumar Lamba reported (2018) 3 SCC 208, paragraph no.11 and 12 of which reads as under:- “11. The question is: whether the fact that the offending vehicle bearing No. DIL 5955 was duly insured by Respondent 2 insurance company would 6 M.A. No. 264 of 2013 pe…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Bhavnagar vs. M/S. Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd

The appeal is allowed

…; provided, answerable for. Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corp,., http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5 345 Mo. 650, 136 S.W. 2d 289, 302" [See also S.N. Chandrashekar and another v. State of Karnataka and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 208] 9. Illustration appended to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57AC of the Rules on its plain reading governs Sub-rules 2(a) and 2(b) of Rule 57AC and not Sub-rule 2(c) thereof as it refers to a situation where ’the machinery’ has been received on April 16, 2000 and not prior thereto. Capital goods received after 1.04.2000 are governed by Clau…