The Supreme Court corrected errors in income and disability evaluation in a motor accident claim. It held that notional income under the Second Schedule was inappropriate and recalculated compensation on a realistic basis.
Specific performance was refused as readiness and willingness were not established on the due date. Applying equity after prolonged delay, the Court substituted enforcement with a ₹3 crore lump-sum.
The Tribunal found that CIT(A) erred by linking the protective addition to another company. The assessment was remanded for correct identification of the beneficiary.
The Court held that a lawful auction cannot be scrapped merely because the authority expects a better price later. Once the highest bid exceeds the reserve price and no illegality exists, cancellation is arbitrary.
The Court held that a later sworn admission by the employer conclusively proved employment and work-related death. The High Court erred by ignoring this and upsetting a valid factual finding.
The judgment clarifies that courts must first be satisfied about sufficient cause for delay before entertaining a belated cheque bounce complaint. Any reverse procedure violates Section 142 of the NI Act.
The ruling emphasizes that registering numerous FIRs in mass fraud cases is unnecessary and burdensome. Courts must focus on whether the acts constitute the same transaction under criminal procedure law.
The Supreme Court held that an undertaking to arrange fund infusion does not amount to a guarantee under contract law. Without a clear promise to discharge the borrower’s debt, no liability can be enforced against the promoter.
The Revenue sought to tax total on-money collected under section 69A. The ITAT ruled that on-money forms part of business receipts and must be assessed on a profit basis. The key takeaway is that taxation cannot ignore unaccounted expenses linked to such receipts.
ITAT Mumbai held that alleged bogus purchases cannot be disallowed when the assessee provides invoices, receipts, bank proofs, and GST compliance. The ruling confirms that suppliers’ non-filing alone is insufficient for disallowance.
