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 moreTaparia Tools issued non-convertible debentures giving holders a choice: periodic interest over five years, or a one-time upfront interest payment. Two debenture holders chose the upfront option, and the company paid them the full amount in the very first year, claiming it as a fully deductible business expense in that year's income tax return, even though, in its own books of account, it had spread the same expenditure over five years. The tax authorities (Assessing Officer, Commissioner, Tribunal and the Bombay High Court) all rejected the full first-year deduction, holding that the expense had to be spread over five years to "match" it with the life of the debentures.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, the only conditions for deducting interest are that capital was borrowed for business purposes and the interest was actually paid or incurred, once satisfied, the Assessing Officer cannot force the taxpayer to defer the deduction merely because the "Matching Concept" was applied in the company's own books of accounts, since book-entries are not determinative of tax liability. The Court distinguished the facts from a prior case (Madras Industrial Investment Corporation) where it was the assessee itself that wanted to spread an expense; here, the assessee had chosen the opposite, to claim it all at once, and was entitled to do so since it genuinely discharged its interest liability in full in the first year. The appeals were allowed, and the assessee was held entitled to deduct the entire upfront interest payment in the year it was actually paid.
For tax purposes, a genuinely incurred and actually paid business expense is deductible in full in the year it is paid; how a company chooses to record the same expense in its own accounting books cannot override its statutory right to claim the deduction under the Income Tax Act.
