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.
Madhu Sehgal and ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-07-1997
Reported in: I(1998)ACC608,1998ACJ127
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award passed by Mr. R.L. Sharma, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Solan & Sirmaur Districts at Solan. By means of impugned award in Case No. 8-S/2 of 1985 dated 30.6.1986, claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for grant of compensation has been rejected.2. In order to properly appreciate the respective contentions raised on behalf of the parties before us, it is necessary to refer to a few facts material for determination of the present appeal.3. Appellant No. 1 Madhu Sehgal is the widow and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 Sunny and Nany are the minor sons and the appellant No. 4 Avinash Devi is the mother, respectively of late Narinder Pal Sehgal, who according to the appellants had died in a motor vehicle accident on 1.1.1985 at a place near Deli within jurisdiction of police station Parwanoo at about 6.00 p.m. According to the appellants, deceased was going on a motor cycle bearing registration No. P...
Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(HP)271,[1998]231ITR556(HP)
M. Srinivasan, C.J.1. In these writ petitions the only question that arises for consideration is whether the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range, Solan, declaring the returns filed by the assessee to be invalid as the conditions prescribed in Section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have not been complied with is correct or not. It is seen from the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner that admittedly the assessee had not filed the audit report under Section 44AB along with the return. Sufficient opportunity was given to the assessee to rectify the return and file the requisite enclosures as required under Section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee gave an explanation that the audit could not be completed and the audit report was not available. The assessee filed the return along with the proforma accounts. The explanation of the assessee was considered and the Deputy Commissioner held that the return had been filed without a proper a...
Bhupindra Food and Malt Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-01-1997
Reported in: [1998]229ITR496(HP)
M. Srinivasan, C.J. 1. The questions referred to us read as follows:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the Income-tax Officer, A Ward, Shimla, held proper jurisdiction in this case to initiate proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and there was no inherent lack of jurisdiction ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in annulling the assessment framed in the status of association of persons ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts that there was no association of persons in existence for the period from April 11, 1963, to February 29, 1964 ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no mental exercise by the Board in the granting of approval under Section 151 ...