Real judgements, distilled
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.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreB.L. Passi, a sole proprietor doing business as Pasco International, claimed a deduction under Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act for about Rs. 58.87 lakh received in foreign exchange from Japan's Sumitomo Corporation, saying he had supplied specialised technical/commercial knowledge about the Indian automobile industry that helped Sumitomo win a components supply deal with Telco's SAFARI project. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, and while the first appellate authority allowed it, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and then the Delhi High Court both ruled against Passi, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 80-O deductions require proof of genuine technical/commercial knowledge actually made available to the foreign enterprise, but Passi never produced the "blue prints" he claimed to have supplied, nor any proof that Sumitomo actually developed or sold a product using his information. The Court found the relationship was essentially that of a managing/commission agent earning a percentage-based service fee, not a provider of technical know-how, so his claim did not fit within the object or wording of Section 80-O. It accordingly upheld the High Court's view and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
A taxpayer claiming a special deduction such as Section 80-O carries the burden of actually proving, with concrete documentary evidence, that the specific technical or commercial knowledge was provided and used: bare assertions and unsubstantiated correspondence are not enough.
