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 morePlastiblends, a manufacturer with eligible industrial undertakings, chose not to claim depreciation under Section 32 while computing its business income for certain assessment years, so as to claim a larger 100% profit-linked deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act (a tax incentive for industrial/infrastructure undertakings). The Assessing Officer disagreed and reduced the Section 80-IA deduction by factoring in depreciation regardless of the assessee's choice. After conflicting rulings within the Bombay High Court (Grasim Industries v. Scoop Industries), a Full Bench of that High Court sided with the Revenue, holding that depreciation must be deducted when computing the Section 80-IA benefit even if the assessee chose not to claim it under Section 32. The assessee and other similarly situated companies appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that while an assessee has a choice (per CIT v. Mahendra Mills) whether or not to claim depreciation under Section 32 when computing ordinary business income, that choice does not carry over to computing the special, profits-linked deduction under Section 80-IA, which the Court characterized as "a code by itself." Relying on its own precedents (Liberty India, Williamson Financial Services, Doom Dooma India), the Court held that any "device" used to inflate the profits of the eligible business, including simply disclaiming depreciation to boost the 80-IA deduction, must be rejected, and the quantum of the special deduction must always be computed after notionally deducting all allowances under Sections 30-43D (including depreciation), regardless of what the assessee actually claimed in its regular computation. The Court fully endorsed the Bombay High Court Full Bench's reasoning and dismissed all the connected appeals filed by the assessees.
A taxpayer's freedom to skip claiming an ordinary deduction (like depreciation) for one purpose does not let them artificially inflate a separate, profit-linked tax incentive: special deductions under schemes like Section 80-IA are computed on a notionally "full" profit figure, closing a loophole that would otherwise let businesses manipulate which year's profits get the tax break.
