TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neous on the ground sought to be canvassed. - Decided against revenue. Higher amount of compensation awarded - Held that:- In Accounting Year 2005 – 2006, the exemption limit was up to ₹ 1,00,000/- and, therefore, upto ₹ 1,00,000/- there was no question of making any deduction of income tax. So far as the amount of income above ₹ 1,00,000/- i.e. ₹ 1,48,161/-, the tax would be ₹ 48,461/- on the basis of tax slab of 10%. It would be roughly ₹ 4,800/- per year and if multiplier of 14 is considered, the said amount would be ₹ 67,200/- towards deduction of income tax. At the same time, another relevant aspect is that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of ₹ 10,000/- towards loss of consorti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt service were going for official work for election duty on 27.10.2005 in the Jeep bearing Registration No.GJ- 17-C-6706 towards Godhra, at that time at about 0.30 hours (at midnight), when they reached near Lilesara Village, the driver of the jeep lost control over the steering of the vehicle because of the speed and resultantly, the car dashed with one stationary truck bearing Registration No.MP-11-9031 and there was an accident. In the said accident, the aforesaid both deceased initially sustained injuries and then they succumbed to the injuries. The aforesaid accident gave rise to two claim petitions one was M.A.C.P. No.1511/2005 for ₹ 27,50,000/- and another was M.A.C.P. No.1873/2005 for ₹ 5,50,000/- respectively before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tially for election duty. It is also an admitted position that the additional amount of premium which otherwise was payable but not paid by the owner of the vehicle. Resultantly, the liability in law could not be fastened upon the owner of the vehicle and consequential insurance company of the vehicle. [6] Learned Assistant Government Pleader attempted to contend that in the requisition order, it was specifically intimated to the owner of the vehicle that he had to pay ₹ 50/- additional premium since the vehicle was being requisitioned and if he had paid the said amount, the insurance company cannot be exonerated and the owner of the vehicle cannot get away from the liability. [7] In our view, the contention may require consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax may be considered by the Tribunal. Even if the contention is considered for the sake of consideration, two aspects need to be recorded. One is that the exemption limit under Income Tax during the respective period. In Accounting Year 2005 2006, the exemption limit was up to ₹ 1,00,000/- and, therefore, upto ₹ 1,00,000/- there was no question of making any deduction of income tax. So far as the amount of income above ₹ 1,00,000/- i.e. ₹ 1,48,161/-, the tax would be ₹ 48,461/- on the basis of tax slab of 10%. It would be roughly ₹ 4,800/- per year and if multiplier of 14 is considered, the said amount would be ₹ 67,200/- towards deduction of income tax. At the same time, another relevant aspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
