Latest Post

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation for Death of a Child — Calculation of Compensation — Deceased 14-year-old schoolboy — Principles adopted for calculating compensation for death of child — Notional monthly income adopted based on Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for a Class B city (Rs. 5400/- per month) — Addition of 40% for future prospects — Multiplier of 15 adopted based on Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan — Deduction of one-half for personal expenses — Statutory heads of compensation (loss of estate, funeral expenses) awarded at Rs. 15,000/- each — Loss of filial consortium awarded at Rs. 40,000/- per parent — Compensation for pain and suffering of the deceased child, who died a day after the accident, awarded at Rs. 25,000/- to inure to the benefit of legal heirs — Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 8,65,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. (Paras 7, 8, 9) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Assessment of income of deceased — Standard of proof — Where claimants assert a high monthly income (Rs. 95,000/-) for the deceased (a transport contractor owning two trucks), which exceeds the taxable limit, failure to produce Income Tax Returns (ITR) is highly relevant and undermines the claim — The contention that high EMI payments (approx. Rs. 42,500/-) imply double the income is an unfounded assumption, amounting to mere surmises and conjectures. (Paras 3, 6) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) — Divorce — Desertion and Cruelty — Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage — Where parties have been living separately for a long period (24 years in this case) without any prospect of reconciliation, this long period of separation amounts to mental cruelty to both parties, justifying dissolution of marriage — The marriage is deemed to have broken down irretrievably — Fact that spouses hold strongly views and refuse to accommodate each other also constitutes cruelty. (Paras 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34) Income Tax Act, 1961 — Sections 37(1), 44C — Deduction of Head Office Expenditure in case of Non-Residents — Interpretation of Section 44C and ‘Head Office Expenditure’ — Distinction between ‘Common’ and ‘Exclusive’ Expenditure — Section 44C, being a special provision with a non-obstante clause, governs the quantum of allowable deduction for any expenditure incurred by a non-resident assessee that qualifies as ‘head office expenditure’ — The definition of ‘head office expenditure’ in the Explanation to Section 44C does not distinguish between common expenditure (shared among branches) and exclusive expenditure (incurred solely for Indian branches) — The term ‘attributable to’ in Section 44C(c) is broad enough to include both common and exclusive head office expenditure; exclusivity is a form of strong attribution — Therefore, Section 44C applies to head office expenditure regardless of whether it is common or exclusive, subjecting the deduction to the statutory ceiling. (Paras 2, 26, 43-45, 47-49, 59-63, 71, 86, 88)

As a result of accident, appellant suffered 26% disability of right lower limb, 25% disability due to urethral injury and 38% disability to whole body – Even though disability suffered by appellant is not 100%, his working capacity has been reduced to zero – Competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to victim of accident – Amount of compensation enhanced to Rs. 8,37,640/-.

  (2012) ACJ 191 : (2011) 13 JT 205 : (2012) 1 RCR(Civil) 509 : (2011) 12 SCALE 658 : (2012) 1 TAC 376 : (2012) 1 UJ 89 SUPREME…

Modvat credit – Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out a circular by which Modvat credit has been given on inputs like chemicals and resins, etc. used in the manufacture of sand moulds for subsequent production of iron castings. Learned counsel also pointed out that in respect of the same goods, in the Jamshedpur factory of the same assessee, this benefit has been given to the appellant – Appeal allowed.

  (1998) 79 ECR 513 : (1997) 92 ELT 4 : (1998) 7 JT 474 : (1998) 9 SCC 176 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA TELCO LIMITED, PUNE — Appellant Vs.…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 321 – Withdrawal from prosecution – Dismissal of application by Trial Court and High Court – Prosecution of MLA for submitting false and fabricated medical bills – Ethics Committee having accepted apology recommended for withdrawal of criminal case pending against appellant but Courts below refused to oblige – Application for withdrawal filed by Public Prosecutor was not based on his own independent application of mind

  (2009) 12 JT 198 : (2009) 15 SCC 604 : (2009) 13 SCR 494 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SRI YERNENI RAJA RAMCHANDER @ RAJABABU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF…

You missed