Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2004 Page 7 of about 62 results (0.009 seconds)

Mar 16 2004 (HC)

State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Mahesh Kumar Madan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-16-2004

Reported in : 2005ACJ1650; RLW2004(3)Raj2003

prakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the only point involved in this appeals that whether any interest can be granted over the compensation awarded under section 140 of the motor vehicle act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1988').3. in this case, the motor accident claims tribunal, hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') awarded compensation of rs. 50,000/- to the claimants on account of on fault liability under section 140 of the act of 1988. while doing so, the tribunal also awarded interest over the said compensation @ 8% per annum. according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the interest is not allowable in a case where any compensation awarded under section 140 of the act of 1988.4. i considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the interim award under section 140 as well as under section 171 of the act of 1988. it is true that in sub-section (2) of the section 140 of the act of 1988, it is mentioned that the amount of compensation, which shall be payable under sub-section (1) of the section 140 of the act of 1988 shall be a fixed sum of rs. 50.000/- in a ease of death of the victim and a fixed sum of rs. 25,000a in a case of permanent disablement of the injured in the accident. the words 'fixed sum' has direct connection only with the amount of compensation. meaning thereby the compensation shall not be more or less, then the rs.50,000/- on rs. 25,000/- as the case may be. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 2004 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madan Parnami Family Trust

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-15-2004

Reported in : (2004)189CTR(Raj)340; [2004]269ITR16(Raj); 2004(3)WLC447

1. in this reference under section 256 of the income-tax act, 1961 (for short 'the act'), the tribunal has referred the following question for answer by this court:'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the tribunal was justified that the assessee-trust was not liable to the charge of capital gains tax in view of the provisions of section 53 of the it act, 1961?'2. relevant asst. yr. is 1986-87, during which the assessee-trust sold residential property for rs. 1,37,000. the cost of acquisition thereof was rs. 80,000. the assessee claimed exemption of entire capital gains as per provisions of section 53 of the act. the ao, however, denied the exemption. according to him, exemption is available only to the assessee, whose status is 'individual' or 'hufs' and not to 'aops'. in appeal before the dy. cit(a), he confirmed the view taken by the ao. in further appeal before the tribunal, the tribunal has taken status of beneficiaries, who are having 'individual' status and the tribunal was of the view that when ultimate income goes in the hands of 'individual' beneficiaries, they are entitled to benefit of section 53 of the act.3. heard learned counsel for the parties.4. section 53 of the act reads as under :'53. notwithstanding anything contained in section 45, where in the case of an assessee being an individual, the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital asset other than short-term capital asset being buildings or land appurtenant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //