Himachal Pradesh Court May 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(HP)88,[1998]232ITR158(HP)
M. Srinivasan, C.J.1. The Tribunal has referred three questions to us for our consideration. One of the questions relates to deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is covered by our judgment in I. T. R. No. 9 of 1988--CIT v. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation , dated May 14, 1997. We have answered the question in that case that the Tribunal was right in law in deciding that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act be allowed at the prescribed percentage of the total income computed before making deduction under Chapter VI-A and also before taking into account the deduction allowable under Section 36(1)(viii) itself. Following the said judgment, we answer the question holding that the Tribunal was right in its view that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act is allowable at the prescribed percentage of the total income before making deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) itself.2. The second question to be considered by us i...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Maheshwari and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-26-1997
Reported in: I(1998)ACC622,1998ACJ1268
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. We propose to take and dispose of these three appeals together as they have arisen out of the same accident but from two separate awards passed by Mr. Surjit Singh, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Una. By means of impugned award passed in M.A.C. No. 5 of 1986 dated 3.12.1988, the Tribunal below has ordered that Suresh Kumar, Ramesh Kumar Thakur and Guru Dutt together with the appellant insurance company are liable for compensation awarded in the sum of Rs. 1,23,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition, i.e., 17.2.1986 till the date of deposit along with costs of the claim petition and liability to satisfy the award was held jointly as well as severally on the parties whereas by an award passed in M.A.C. No. 8 of 1986 dated 3.12.1988, claim petition by Suresh Kumar has been rejected.2. Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurance company') has filed F.A.O. (MVA) No. 36 of 1989 against the aforesaid award of t...
Himachal Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Padma Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-21-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ27
M. Srinivasan, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solan. The accident took place on 16.6.1986 at about 4 p.m. near village Dharja on Solan Rahgarh road. The husband of the first claimant by name, Joginder Singh, was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. HPA 1289 belonging to Himachal Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant'). According to the claimants, the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the driver failed to negotiate a curve properly with the result the vehicle rolled down a ditch some 100 metres below the road. Consequently, injuries were sustained by several persons travelling in the vehicle and Joginder Singh succumbed to the said injuries on the spot. He was employed as leprosy worker in ayurvedic dispensary, Dhamla, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur and was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,743/- p.m. He was aged about 36 years and he had good chances of rising up in his li...
Bhagwan Singh Nainta Vs. General Manager, Punjab Roadways and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-21-1997
Reported in: 1(1998)ACC673
M. Srinivasan, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Solan. The appellant in F.A.O. No. 79/85 is the claimant while the appellant in F.A.O. No. 170/86 are the owners of the bus involved in the accident.2. The accident occurred on 1.11.1983 when the appellant/claimant, who was Sub-Divisional Magistrate, was proceeding in his Jeep from Solan to Shimla on official duty. The bus owned by the Punjab Roadways which was coming from the opposite side, dashed against the Jeep and dragged it to some distance about 25 to 30 metres. It is in the evidence that the bus was on the wrong side of the road when it dashed against the Jeep. Besides causing damage to the Jeep, the accident resulted in serious injuries to the claimant. He suffered grievous injuries in his head and leg. He got admitted in the Hospital at P.G.I., Chandigarh on 1.11.1983 and he stayed in the Hospital till 16.12.1983 at that time.3. The evidence of claimant as PW-1 is ...
Dayal Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(HP)25
M. Srinivasans C.J.Before answering the question referred to us in this case we are, with some pain in heart, referring to the conduct of counsel for the applicant, namely, Mr. K.D. Mohan. So far, to our recollection, he has not chosen to appear before this court at least in four cases decided earlier. We went on to dispose of those cases on the merits unmindful of the absence of counsel as we had all the records before us. But this kind of failure to appear before the court is being persisted in by the said counsel. We are, therefore, constrained to make a remark about his conduct in our judgment in this case. It is highly improper on the part of counsel on record to be away from the court. If he is not able to appear before the court he should make arrangements to be represented before the court by some other advocate or if he is not interested in the case he should have appeared before the court and informed the court that he is not so interested. Counsel on record in this case, Mr....
Kaushalya and ors. Vs. Chet Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-16-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ423
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. These appeals [F.A.O. (MVA) Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 1987] are being disposed of by a common judgment, as these arise out of the same accident and common award dated 30.7.1986 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal-Spiti districts at Mandi (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), whereby Claim Petition No. 1 of 1986 titled Kaushalya v. Chet Ram, Claim Petition No. 5 of 1986 titled Chit-ranjan Dev v. Chet Ram and Claim Petition No. 6 of 1986 titled Chitranjan Dev v. Chet Ram were dismissed, holding that the accident was not caused by respondent Chet Ram, driver of truck No. HPM 1507 belonging to Department of Irrigation and Public Health, Division Mandi. However, the petitioners-claimants in the said claim petitions were awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for each of the deceased under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act').2. It is not in dispute that the unfortunate accident in question had taken place on 1...
Lahaul Potato Growers Co-operative Marketing Processing Society Ltd. V ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR718(HP)
M. Srinivasan, C.J.1. The question referred to this court reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is to be allowed against the net income after setting off proportionate expenses for earning the exempt income where such expenses are mixed up with the remaining expenses ?'2. The assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The assessment year is 1982-83 and the corresponding accounting period was from July 1, 1980, to June 30, 1981. The assessee was mainly engaged in the business of earning commission on the sale of potatoes of its members. Before the Income-tax Officer, a claim was made that the income earned from the commission business amounting to Rs. 3,22,697 was entirely exempt. The officer agreed with the assessee, but observed that the expenses incurred for earning the income had to be set off in order to arrive at the...
Lahaul Potato Growers Co-operative Marketing Processing Society Ltd. V ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(HP)177
M. Srinivasan, C. J.The question referred to this court reads as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) is to be allowed against the net income after setting off proportionate expenses for earning the exempt income where such expenses are mixed up with the remaining expenses?'2. The assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The assessment year is 1982-83 and the corresponding accounting period was from 1-7-1980 to 30-6-1981. The assessee was mainly engaged in the business of earning commission on the sale of potatoes of its members. Before the Income Tax Officer, a claim was made that the income earned from the commission business amounting to Rs. 3,22,697 was entirely exempt. The officer agreed with the assessee, but observed that the expenses incurred for earning the income had to be set off in order to arrive at the net income f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR138(HP)
M. Srinivasan, C.J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, be allowed at the prescribed percentage of the total income computed before allowing deduction under Chapter VI-A and also before taking into account the deduction allowable under Section 36(1)(viii) itself ?'2. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, at the prescribed percentage of the total income computed before allowing any deduction under Chapter VI-A and also before considering deduction allowable under Section 36(1)(viii) itself. The claim of the assessee was, thus, not accepted. That was challenged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. The matter was taken to the Tribunal. The Tribunal dealt with the matter as follows :'The second g...
Dayal Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-1997
Reported in: [1998]231ITR569(HP)
M. Srinivasan, C.J.1. Before answering the question referred to us in this case we are, with some pain in heart, referring to the conduct of counsel for the applicant, namely, Mr. K. D. Mohan. So far, to our recollection, he has not chosen to appear before this court at least in four cases decided earlier. We went on to dispose of those cases on the merits unmindful of the absence of counsel as we had all the records before us. But this kind of failure to appear before the court is being persisted in by the said counsel. We are, therefore, constrained to make a remark about his conduct in our judgment in this case. It is highly improper on the part of counsel on record to be away from the court. If he is not able to appear before the court he should make arrangements to be represented before the court by some other advocate or if he is not interested in the case he should have appeared before the court and informed the court that he is not so interested. Counsel on record in this case,...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »