Supreme Court of India Judgements

47260 Judgements hosted as on 24/05/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Income Tax Act

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 Act

DTAA, India-UAE, Article 5(1) — Permanent Establishment — Definition of “fixed place of business” — The definition of Permanent Establishment requires a fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on. The key test is whether the place is “at the disposal” of the enterprise, meaning the enterprise has the right to use the premises to carry on its business. Factors like stability, productivity, and a degree of independence are also considered.

Jul 28, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 891 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD. Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. )…

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 17(2)(viii) – Income Tax Rules, 1962 – Rule 3(7)(i) – The appeals involve challenges to the vires of Section 17(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act and Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, concerning the taxation of perquisites in the form of interest-free/concessional loans to bank employees – The primary issues are whether these provisions result in excessive delegation of legislative function to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and if Rule 3(7)(i) is arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution by using the State Bank of India’s Prime Lending Rate as a benchmark – The Court reasoned that the legislative policy and standards are sufficiently clear in the primary legislation, and the rule-making authority’s actions fall within the permissible parameters of delegation – The Court found that the provisions align with the common understanding of ‘perquisites’ and ‘fringe benefits’ and that the use of SBI’s rate promotes tax efficiency and certainty – The Supreme Court concluded that Section 17(2)(viii) and Rule 3(7)(i) are intra vires and do not lead to excessive delegation or violate constitutional principles – The judgment emphasizes the importance of clarity, consistency, and fairness in tax legislation.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 389 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALL INDIA BANK OFFICERS’ CONFEDERATION — Appellant Vs. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjiv…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 154, 173 — Clubbing/Transfer of FIRs — Multiple FIRs registered against petitioners in different jurisdictions arising from same set of transactions relating to a real estate project — Held, multiplicity of FIRs and parallel investigations on same facts leads to avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the accused — Principle laid down in T.T — Antony v — State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, that there cannot be multiple FIRs for the same occurrence or transaction, squarely applies — FIR No. 30/2019 (EOW, Delhi) directed to be transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024 (Gurugram, Haryana) for investigation — Blanket direction restraining coercive steps in future FIRs declined, but petitioners permitted to avail remedies in law if future FIRs are based on the same transaction.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Abuse of Process of Court — Discharge of Accused — Vague Allegations — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet are general and do not specify the role of the accused, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court and may cause prejudice.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 2(2), Order 20 Rule 18 — Preliminary vs. Final Decree — A Preliminary Decree declares rights and liabilities, leaving actual results to be worked out in further proceedings — A Final Decree is passed after further inquiries, completely disposing of the suit — A Preliminary Decree cannot be executed directly unless it is partly final — Provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 allow a court to pass a Preliminary Decree declaring rights and giving further directions if partition cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry in suits for partition of immovable property — The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred by focusing on the nomenclature of the decree rather than its executable portions, especially when the property was not divisible by metes and bounds.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
Constitution Narcotics Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 43-D(5) — Bail — Constitutional Courts’ power to grant bail — The Supreme Court reiterated that statutory restrictions on bail under the UAP Act do not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution — The Court emphasized that the rigors of Section 43-D(5) can “melt down” when there is no likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration is substantial.

May 24, 2026 sclaw