COMMNR.INCOME TAX vs. PIYUSH KU GUPTA

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 04.07.2017 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are 16 appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 8 of them are quantum appeals and the ITA 73, 75, 77 to 82, 86, 100, 113, 123, 200, 561, 633 and 688 of 2005 Page

SUNIL KU.SAHU vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: The Learned Tribunal, Are As Under:- A) That The Learned Tribunal Has Erred In Adopting The Multiplier Dependent On The Age Of The Mother Of The Deceased, Rather Than On The Age Of The Deceased. The Learned Counsel For The Appellants Submits That The Multiplier Has To Be Based On The Age Of The Deceased. He Submits That, In The Present Case, The Deceased Was Aged Digitally Signed By:Sunil Signing Date:04.09.2023 18:34:06 Signature Not Verified

JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the Award dated 26.09.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned ‘Tribunal’) in MACT No. 52/2014 and MACT New No. 15208/2015 titled Smt. Usha & Ors. v. Akbar