Direct Taxation Archives - Supreme Court of India Judgements

August 5, 2026 2:03 pm

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 44B — “Carriage” of passengers — Meaning and scope of — Cruise operations by non-resident shipping entity — Held, the word “carriage” under Section 44B cannot be restrictively construed to mean movement only from Port A to Port B. A round-trip cruise voyage, where passengers have the option to disembark at intermediate ports without compulsion to return to the originating port, constitutes carriage of passengers within the meaning of Section 44B. Provision of incidental on-board entertainment and hospitality does not alter the essential character of the activity as carriage of passengers.

Aug 2, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 771 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) Vs. M/S STAR CRUISES (INDIA) P. LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : S.V.N. Bhatti…

Direct Taxation Income Tax

the reasoning in the impugned judgment that the non-obstante clause would not in any manner dilute or override the employer’s obligation to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee’s income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. I

May 28, 2026 sclaw

CHECKMATE SERVICES P. LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 147 and 148 — Reopening of assessment — Validity — Tangible material — Change of opinion — Assessing Officer has no power to review an assessment; reassessment must be based on tangible material, not a mere change of opinion — The discovery of fresh information during a survey, which reveals the true nature of a transaction and suggests income has escaped assessment, can form the basis for reopening an assessment, even if certain disclosures were made during the original assessment.

May 14, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 472 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANAND PROPERTIES P. LTD. Vs. JT. COMMR. OF I.T. RANGE 6 AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan,…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 197, 245Q, 245R(2)(iii) — Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Mauritius, Article 13(4) — Capital Gains Tax — Advance Ruling — Tax Avoidance — The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) rejected an application for an advance ruling on the grounds that the transaction (sale of shares of a Singapore company by a Mauritius company) was prima facie designed for tax avoidance — The High Court overturned this decision, holding the assessee was entitled to treaty benefits and that their income was not chargeable in India — The Supreme Court is examining whether the AAR was correct in rejecting the applications for advance ruling on maintainability grounds.

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 60 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) AND OTHERS Vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Sections 28, 47(vii), 2(47), 2(14) — Taxability of Amalgamation — Shares held as Stock-in-Trade vs. Capital Assets — Receipt of shares of amalgamated company in lieu of shares of amalgamating company — If the shares of the amalgamating company were held as capital assets, the receipt of shares of the amalgamated company is a “transfer” under Section 2(47) but exempt from Capital Gains tax under Section 47(vii), provided the requirements of that section are met (amalgamated company is Indian, transfer in consideration of allotment of shares). (Paras 2, 8.3, 12, 12.1, 27)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 46 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI – II, NEW DELHI ( Before : J.B.…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) — Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure — Non-compete fee — Whether payment of non-compete fee constitutes allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure — Non-compete fee is paid to restrain a competitor, which protects or enhances the business profitability and facilitates carrying on the business more efficiently — Such payment neither creates a new asset nor increases the profit-earning apparatus for the payer, meaning the enduring advantage, if any, is not in the capital field — The length of time of the advantage is not determinative if the advantage merely facilitates business operations, leaving fixed assets untouched — Payment of non-compete fee made by the appellant (formed as a joint venture) to L&T (previous partner) to restrain L&T from competing for 7 years was essentially to keep a potential competitor out and ensure the appellant operated more efficiently and profitably, without creating a new capital asset or monopoly — Held: Payment of non-compete fee is an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. (Paras 16, 25-29)

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1481 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D ( Before : Manoj Misra and…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

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)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1431 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI. Vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD. ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K.V.Viswanathan, JJ. )…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 36(1)(viii) — Interpretation of “derived from” vs. “attributable to” — The phrase “derived from” connotes a requirement of a direct, first-degree nexus between the income and the specified business activity (providing long-term finance) — It is judicially settled that “derived from” is narrower than “attributable to,” thus excluding ancillary, incidental, or second-degree sources of income — If income is even a “step removed” from the core business, the nexus is broken (Paras 14, 15, 20, 33).

Dec 11, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1414 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

. Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) and Section 71 — Business Expenditure — Carrying on Business — A temporary lull in business or failure to secure a new contract does not amount to cessation of business if the assessee’s conduct evinces an intention to continue business, such as through continuous correspondence and bidding for new contracts.

Oct 26, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1247 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRIDE FORAMER S.A. @ HASH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER ( Before : Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. )…

Direct Taxation Income Tax

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 260A — Appeals to High Court — Charitable Purpose Registration — High Court dismissed revenue’s appeals, stating issues were covered by earlier decisions, but failed to examine facts against the law. Supreme Court found impugned orders lacked factual elaboration and remanded for reconsideration in light of settled law by a larger bench decision.

Oct 11, 2025 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) LUCKNOW Vs. M/S. KHURJA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ( Before : Manoj Misra and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed

Environment

Environment Law — Environmental Clearance — Prior clearance — Mandatory character — Prior environmental clearance under EIA Notification, 2006 is mandatory, being founded on the precautionary principle and couched in imperative terms — Word “prior” and the graded four-stage screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal process render an anterior assessment the sine qua non of the clearance regime — Decriminalisation of contraventions under Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 does not alter this mandatory character.

Aug 2, 2026 sclaw

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Cr P C

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 415 — Appeal — Maintainability — Conviction recorded for first time by appellate court reversing acquittal — An appeal under Section 374 CrPC (Section 415 BNSS) is not maintainable against a judgment of conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction and reversing an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court — No such second appeal is contemplated under CrPC or BNSS — The only remedy available is revision under Section 397 r/w 401 CrPC (Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS)

Aug 2, 2026 sclaw

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 44B — “Carriage” of passengers — Meaning and scope of — Cruise operations by non-resident shipping entity — Held, the word “carriage” under Section 44B cannot be restrictively construed to mean movement only from Port A to Port B. A round-trip cruise voyage, where passengers have the option to disembark at intermediate ports without compulsion to return to the originating port, constitutes carriage of passengers within the meaning of Section 44B. Provision of incidental on-board entertainment and hospitality does not alter the essential character of the activity as carriage of passengers.

Aug 2, 2026 sclaw

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Scope of inquiry — Mini-trial impermissible — At the stage of considering quashing of an FIR, the Court’s inquiry is confined to whether the allegations, taken at face value, prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence — Court cannot conduct a “mini-trial” by sifting evidence, assessing probabilities, or evaluating witness credibility — High Court exceeding these limits by examining trap proceedings, absence of personal recovery, and departmental enquiry findings, held impermissible.

Aug 2, 2026 sclaw

Category: Direct Taxation

You missed