Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Direct Taxation

Direct Taxation

Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) – HELD sequitur to a declaration under the IDS does not lead to immunity (from taxation) in the hands of a non-declarant.held that immunity granted by a tax amnesty scheme in respect of liabilities under some enactments, did not afford protection against action under other enactments or laws:

Apr 2, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CIRCLE 1(2) — Appellant Vs. M/S. M. R. SHAH LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Uday…

Direct Taxation

Finance Act, 1994 – Section 66(B) – Exemption from service tax – Services provided in the nature of contract labour not job work – On reading the agreement as a whole, it is apparent that the contract is pure and simple a contract for the provision of contract labour – Appeal dismissed.

Feb 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ADIRAJ MANPOWER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE II — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…

Direct Taxation

It is settled principle of interpretation that where the same Statute, uses different terms and expressions, then it is clear that Legislature is referring to distinct and different things. the assessments completed against the assessee with respect to assessment years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 stand set aside. The assessing officer to pass revised orders after computing the liability in accordance with the directions as indicated

Jan 3, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING & MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) — Respondent ( Before :…

Direct Taxation

Powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that – If the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous on merits, in that case, the remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court, which in fact was filed by the Assessee before the High Court, but later on the Assessee withdrew the same in the instant case – Impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the common order passed by the ITAT recalling its earlier order deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside.

Dec 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT-4), MUMBAI — Appellant Vs. M/S RELIANCE TELECOM LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Direct Taxation

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Ss 143(3), 263 and 263(2) – Assessment – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Receipt of the order passed under Section 263 by the assessee has no relevance for the purpose of counting the period of limitation – The order was made/passed by the learned Commissioner on 26.03.2012 and it was dispatched on 28.03.2012. The relevant last date for the purpose of passing the order under Section 263 considering the fact that the assessment was for the financial year 2008­09 would be 31.03.2012 and the order might have been received as per the case of the assessee. Wrongly held passed by the learned Commissioner was barred by period of limitation

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI — Appellant Vs. MOHAMMED MEERAN SHAHUL HAMEED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

Direct Taxation

The subject-matter of the aforementioned Appeals is the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 07.11.2013 as well as a subsequent decision of the Delhi High Court dated 08.09.2014, which ruled on the issue of interest under Section 234B in favour of the Revenue, relying on the Division Bench judgement dated 07.11.2013. The point that arises for consideration in these Appeals is covered by our judgement in Civil Appeal No. 1262 of 2016.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI — Appellant Vs. M/S. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

Direct Taxation

Whether proportionate disallowance of interest paid by the banks is called for under Section 14A of Income Tax Act- Proportionate disallowance of interest is not warranted, under Section 14A of Income Tax Act for investments made in tax free bonds/ securities which yield tax free dividend and interest to Assessee Banks in those situations where, interest free own funds available with the Assessee, exceeded their investments.

Sep 18, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Direct Taxation

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 43B Explanation 3C – Explanation 3C, which was introduced for the “removal of doubts” , only made it clear that interest that remained unpaid and has been converted into a loan or borrowing shall not be deemed to have been actually paid

Aug 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-III — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

Direct Taxation

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Bogus donation – Cancellation of Trust Registration – HELD Donations were received by way of cheques out of which substantial money was ploughed back or returned to the donors in cash – The facts thus clearly show that those were bogus donations

Aug 7, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA — Appellant Vs. BATANAGAR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH TRUST — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw