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

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. M/s Delhivery Pvt. Ltd.

Income Tax Appeal · 2026:DHC:7975-DBDecided 17 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
ITA 479/2024CNR: DLHC010577692024
Justice Dinesh Mehta · Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta

Background

The Income Tax Department appealed against a ruling of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that had gone in favour of logistics company Delhivery on two points: (i) whether the company could claim a tax deduction of over Rs. 51 crore for the cost of its Employee Stock Option Scheme (ESOP), and (ii) whether an addition of about Rs. 62.7 lakh as "undisclosed income" was justified, based on the Assessing Officer's objection that a share valuation report was certified by a Chartered Accountant instead of a Merchant Banker.

Decision Breakdown

The High Court ruled entirely in the company's favour on both counts. On the ESOP deduction, it simply followed its own well-established precedent (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lemon Tree Hotels) that ESOP costs are a legitimate deductible business expense, not something to be disallowed. On the valuation question, the Court noted the Tax Department's own rule requiring Merchant Banker certification only came into force from a later financial year (via a May 2018 notification): the valuation in this case related to an earlier year (2017-18), when a Chartered Accountant's certification was still valid. The tax appeal was rejected entirely.

Lesson Learnt

Tax authorities cannot apply a new rule (here, a Merchant Banker certification requirement) retroactively to earlier financial years where the older, more permissive rule was still in force, and settled precedent on ESOP deductions continues to bind future assessments.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. M/s Delhivery Pvt. Ltd. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware