The Court ruled that failure to substitute the legal representatives of one heir does not automatically abate proceedings. Abatement arises only where the deceased party’s interest is left wholly unrepresented.
The Supreme Court held that repeated non-disclosure of pending criminal cases in attestation and verification forms is fatal to candidature. Truthful disclosure at entry is mandatory, regardless of later acquittal or clarification.
The courts held that when depreciation on goodwill is allowed after detailed examination, the assessment cannot be revised as erroneous. The key takeaway is that a plausible and informed assessment order bars revision under Section 263.
The issue was whether receipt of shares on amalgamation attracts tax when shares are held as stock-in-trade. The Court held such substitution can trigger business income under Section 28 if the shares are realisable, reinforcing the real income principle.
The Supreme Court ruled that duty-free imports under export incentive licences cannot be denied without evidence of fraud. Valid licences and verified exports were held sufficient to retain benefits.
The issue was whether courts can take cognizance of company fraud offences on a private complaint. The Supreme Court held that offences linked to fraud punishment require an SFIO or authorised government complaint, reinforcing statutory safeguards.
The Supreme Court examined whether shares received on amalgamation can be taxed as business income when held as stock-in-trade. It ruled that tax arises only if the substitution results in a real, commercially realizable gain, not a mere statutory replacement.
The Supreme Court held that a subsequent affidavit ratifying acts of a power-of-attorney holder revived the agreement and reset limitation. Once ratification was admitted, refusal to execute sale entitled the buyer to specific performance.
The Supreme Court held that quashing corruption FIRs on technical objections to police-station notification was unjustified. The key takeaway is that substance and continuity of law prevail over procedural hyper-technicalities.
The issue was whether the Company Law Board could condone delay in appeals under Section 58(3). The Supreme Court held that CLB, being a quasi-judicial body, had no such power in absence of statutory authority.
