Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court adjusts compensation based on deceased's income-tax returns and vehicle ownership. Award modified to Rs. 5,81,440.</h1> The Court recalculated the compensation amount for the deceased based on his income-tax returns and ownership of vehicles. The initial award was adjusted ... Compensation on account of death caused by rash driving - enhanced income shown by dependent of deceased for claiming enhanced compensation - HELD THAT:- From the first three income-tax returns, it is obvious that the deceased did not show the income earned by these package tours of taxies to the Income Tax Department, but revealed the income of his salary only and when he passed away, his dependants without discerning the implications of such disclosure presented the incometax return for the year 2006-07 to the tune of ₹ 98,500/-, which was almost double than the last three income-tax returns filed by the deceased. Therefore, the income which might have been earned by the dependants out of these two cabs could not at all be taken into consideration for evaluating the compensation - It is for yet another reason that even after the death of such owner of vehicles, the income of the dependents out of these vehicles would not have lost and they would have continued to earn the income from these vehicles even after the death of Mr. Arya. Thus, only the average of first three income-tax returns would have been the base for evaluating the compensation. Such average income comes to ₹ 52,635/-. Looking to the status of the family, I would not like to deduct 1/4th towards the personal expenses, but it must have been 1/3rd and considering such standards, the total dependency come to ₹ 35,090/- and applying the multiplier of “16” thereon, the amount of compensation comes to ₹ 5,61,440/- - Again considering the financial status of the family, I further reduce the amount from ₹ 20,000/- to ₹ 10,000/- towards the loss of consortium. The amount awarded for the loss of love and affection is also reduced from ₹ 10,000/- to ₹ 5,000/-. However, the amount of ₹ 5,000/-, awarded for the funeral expenses, is left intact - This way the total compensation comes to ₹ 5,61,440 + 10,000 + 5000 + 5000 = 5,81,440/-. The quantum of compensation is reduced to the extent indicated - the appeal of the insurance company is hereby allowed. Issues:Evaluation of compensation for the deceased based on income-tax returns and ownership of vehicles.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the evaluation of compensation for the deceased based on his income-tax returns and ownership of vehicles. The deceased was involved in a fatal accident caused by a rashly driven vehicle, leading to his demise. The dependents of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation, which was initially granted by the Tribunal at a higher amount than requested. The insurance company, the appellant, contested the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants.The main contention raised by the insurance company was regarding the deceased's income-tax returns. It was argued that the Tribunal erred in evaluating the compensation based on the deceased's total income for the year 2006-07, which was deemed inappropriate. The Tribunal considered the deceased's ownership of two vehicles and the income derived from them to justify the awarded compensation. However, it was highlighted that the deceased did not disclose the income earned from these vehicles in his income-tax returns, which raised doubts about the accuracy of the compensation evaluation.The Court pointed out that the deceased, being a Class IV employee of the Motor Transport Department, was not allowed to engage in a parallel business, such as owning and operating vehicles for package tours. The Court emphasized that the income derived from these vehicles should not have been considered for calculating the compensation amount. It was noted that even after the deceased's death, the dependents could have continued to earn income from the vehicles.Ultimately, the Court recalculated the compensation amount based on the average of the deceased's first three income-tax returns, amounting to Rs. 52,635. After adjusting for personal expenses and applying a multiplier, the revised compensation was determined to be Rs. 5,61,440. Additionally, the Court reduced the amounts awarded for loss of consortium and love and affection while maintaining the funeral expenses amount.In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal of the insurance company and modified the quantum of compensation to Rs. 5,81,440. The revised compensation amount was directed to be released to the claimants, with the excess amount to be returned to the insurance company.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found