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 LawSupreme Court of India

The Commissioner of Income Tax 7 vs M/S Paville Projects Pvt Ltd.

Civil AppealDecided 6 Apr 2023
Civil Appeal No. 6126 of 2021

Background

The assessee company sold its building "Paville House" for Rs. 33 crores and, in computing its capital gains, deducted Rs. 31.05 crore paid to three shareholders (siblings who were embroiled in a family/company dispute) as a "cost of improvement," treating the payment as removing an "encumbrance" on the property under a family settlement/arbitration award. The Assessing Officer accepted this. The Commissioner of Income Tax later used his revisional power under Section 263 to set this aside, holding the payment was not a genuine cost of improvement and the original assessment was erroneous and cost the exchequer tax revenue. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Bombay High Court both sided with the assessee and restored the original assessment.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court disagreed with the Tribunal and High Court. Applying the settled two-part test from Malabar Industrial Co. (an order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the Commissioner to use Section 263), the Court held that the payment to shareholders to settle their personal/company dispute had nothing to do with improving the property itself and did not qualify as "cost of improvement" under Section 55(1)(b). Since the Assessing Officer's acceptance of this claim was legally unsustainable, it was indeed erroneous and caused a genuine loss of tax revenue, justifying the Commissioner's revision. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Commissioner's order was restored.

Lesson Learnt

Not every payment a company makes to resolve a shareholder or internal dispute qualifies as a deductible "cost of improvement" for capital gains tax purposes: the expense must be genuinely connected to enhancing the asset itself, and tax authorities can revisit an assessment that wrongly allows such deductions.

The Commissioner of Income Tax 7 vs M/S Paville Projects Pvt Ltd. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware