Supreme Court dismissed compensation appeals, holding that accident occurrence alone cannot establish liability. Claimants failed to prove involvement of the offending vehicle or rash driving.
Orders issued under Sections 147A(d) and 148 were quashed as arbitrary, and the delayed SLP challenging them was dismissed, finalizing the invalidation of reassessment proceedings.
The Court held that violation of the ₹20,000 cash-loan limit under tax law attracts only penalty and does not void the debt. Cheque-bounce prosecutions under Section 138 NI Act remain valid despite such breaches.
The Tribunal held that Section 69 additions based solely on pen-drive data and an employee’s statement from a third-party search could not be sustained. No corroboration or confrontation to the assessee was provided. The ruling confirms that unsupported electronic data cannot create taxable on-money additions.
SC upheld the view that claimed liabilities towards two banks were unsubstantiated. The ruling reinforces the need for documentary verification of liabilities.
The Court held that dividend income, bank-deposit interest, and SDF service charges are not derived from long-term finance. Only direct lending profits qualify for the deduction.
The Supreme Court held that the corporate debtor’s alleged pre-existing dispute lacked any factual basis and reinstated NCLT’s CIRP admission. The ruling reaffirms that illusory or unsupported defences cannot defeat a Section 9 IBC claim.
The Court held that once the statutory deadline expires, an arbitrator becomes functus officio and cannot be granted a fresh extension. It ordered substitution under Section 29A(6), reinforcing strict timelines for arbitral awards.
The Court ruled that failure to meet strict payment deadlines in an IBC-supervised sale justified full forfeiture. It held that such sales are governed by IBC and NCLT orders, not Contract Act protections.
SC emphasized that contempt power is not a sword to silence criticism but includes the power to forgive when remorse is genuine. The High Court wrongly imposed punishment despite an unconditional apology and resignation by the contemnor.
