Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

Akansha Kapoor @ Akanksha Kapoor @ Akanksha Berry vs. Income Tax Office

Criminal Miscellaneous Case · CNR No. DLHC010844502024Decided 14 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
CRL.M.C. 9184/2024CNR: DLHC010844502024
Justice Manoj Jain

Background

The petitioner sought quashing of a complaint filed by the Income Tax Office alleging non-deposit of TDS by a company for financial year 2016-17, in which she had been treated as "Principal Officer" on the basis that she was a Director of the accused company. She was served a show-cause notice under Section 2(35) of the Income Tax Act and later summoned by the trial court along with other accused. Crucially, the Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department admitted before the High Court that the petitioner was never actually a Director of the accused company.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that the entire chain of proceedings, the show-cause notice, the Section 2(35) order, the Section 279(1) sanction order, and the complaint itself, rested solely on the premise that the petitioner was a Director, which the Department itself now conceded was factually incorrect. Since her prosecution as "Principal Officer" depended entirely on a directorship that never existed, the Court found the prosecution fallacious and unsustainable and quashed it as against her. The Court clarified this order was based on the peculiar facts of the case and should not be treated as a precedent.

Lesson Learnt

A person cannot be prosecuted as a company's "Principal Officer" for tax defaults on the basis of a directorship the tax department itself admits she never held: factual errors in the foundational notice can be fatal to the entire prosecution.

Akansha Kapoor @ Akanksha Kapoor @ Akanksha Berry vs. Income Tax Office – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware