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 moreThe appellant, an exporter, had claimed income tax deductions under both Section 80-IA (profits from industrial undertakings) and Section 80-HHC (profits from export business) for the same assessment year. The tax department disallowed the Section 80-HHC deduction, arguing that Section 80-IA(9) barred claiming a second deduction on profits already used for the first. Two judges of the Supreme Court had earlier disagreed on how Section 80-IA(9) should be interpreted, so the question was referred to this larger three-judge Bench to settle the law authoritatively.
The Court held that there is a crucial difference between "computing" a deduction and "allowing" it. Section 80-IA(9) does not require that profits already used for one deduction be excluded when computing a different deduction under a separate provision: each deduction is computed independently on the full gross total income. What Section 80-IA(9) does restrict is the total amount actually allowed: once all deductions under Chapter VI-A heading 'C' are added up, they cannot together exceed 100% of the business's actual profits. The Court approved the Bombay High Court's reasoning on this point and disapproved the contrary view taken by the Delhi and Punjab & Haryana High Courts, resolving the earlier judicial disagreement in favour of the assessee-friendly interpretation.
A business or taxpayer claiming multiple tax deductions on the same profits should understand that tax law often permits each deduction to be independently calculated in full, while capping only the total amount ultimately allowed at 100% of actual profits: the restriction operates at the final "allowance" stage, not at the earlier "computation" stage.
