Taxation Law - Capital Gains – Timing of Transfer under JDA – Section 2(47)(v) – Substantive Assessment from A.Y. 2007–08 – Not Taxable in A.Y. 2006–07 - Held: The transaction under the unregistered Joint Development Agreement dated 23.11.2005 did not amount to “transfer” under Section 2(47)(v) read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in A.Y. 2006–07 as there was no development activity in that year – Capital gains to be computed in subsequent assessment years based on actual transfer of constructed property [Paras 1–4, 50–53, 104–105].

Section 80IB(10) Deduction – Applicability of Section 80AC – Deduction Allowed for A.Y. 2006–07 Only - Held: Benefit of deduction under Section 80IB(10) could not be denied for A.Y. 2006–07 as Section 80AC was not yet in force – However, for A.Ys. 2007–08 onwards, deduction not allowable as no claim was made in returns filed under Section 139(1) as mandated by Section 80AC – Remedy left open for collateral challenge to Section 80AC in separate proceedings [Paras 12, 90–104, 118–120].

Bogus Expenditure – Cost of Improvement – Remanded for Fresh Verification – Held: Assessee failed to substantiate Rs. 4.52 crore cost claimed via M/s. Takshil Trading Pvt. Ltd., a suspected hawala operator – Tribunal rightly remanded issue to Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, noting procedural lapses and non-disclosure of documents to assessee [Paras 25, 64–65, 71–72].

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) – Justified Reduction – Tribunal's Discretion Upheld - Penalty for concealment of income reduced from 300% to 100% by CIT(A) and upheld by ITAT – High Court found no perversity in exercise of discretion by lower authorities [Paras 28, 39–41].

Suppression of Income – Re-routing via Related Party – Assessee Found Liable - Managing Director’s son introduced as partner in Developer Firm received Rs. 25 crore consideration – Held: This was diversion of company’s capital gains, not substantiated in returns – Tribunal correctly upheld substantive assessments in A.Y. 2007–08 onwards [Paras 16–20, 62–63, 73–74].

Decision – Partial Relief to Assessee – Deduction allowed for A.Y. 2006–07 – Dismissal of appeals for A.Ys. 2007–08 to 2011–12 – Appeals of Department allowed for statistical purposes – Assessee given liberty to challenge Section 80AC separately under Article 226 [Paras 120–124].

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint – Cause of Action – Illusory Pleading – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – The plaintiff claimed a 1/3rd share in ancestral property and challenged sale deeds of 1972 and 1975, relying on the dismissal of a prior unrelated civil suit in 2021 as cause of action – Held: The Court found that the alleged cause of action was fictitious and a result of clever drafting – The pendency or dismissal of prior litigation was irrelevant and did not prevent the plaintiff from asserting his rights earlier [Paras 1-4, 10, 15-16].

Limitation – Declaration of Ownership and Partition – Article 58 & 110 of Limitation Act – Suit Time-Barred – The plaintiff attained majority in 1978 and was aware of the disputed transactions – Held: Suit for declaration and partition should have been filed within 3 or 12 years respectively – The present suit filed in 2022 was clearly barred by limitation – The trial court erred in treating limitation as a mixed question of fact and law despite clear averments in plaint [Paras 12-14, 18-19].

Jurisdiction of Trial Court – Failure to Exercise Judicial Discretion – Misapplication of Order VII Rule 11 – The trial court rejected the application without thoroughly evaluating whether the plaint disclosed a real cause of action or was barred by limitation – Held: The trial court failed to act as per binding precedents requiring courts to reject plaints lacking a meaningful cause of action or filed beyond limitation [Paras 17-18, 22].

Decision – Plaint Rejected – Revision Allowed – The High Court quashed the trial court’s order and allowed the applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held that the plaint disclosed no genuine cause of action and was hopelessly barred by limitation – Pending applications were also disposed of accordingly [Paras 22-23].

Civil Suit – Permanent Injunction – Religious Use and Long-standing Possession – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff sought injunction restraining interference in use of open site (Asharkhana) for annual religious practice on Milad-un-Nabi – Trial court partially granted relief; Appellate court decreed suit entirely – Held: Continuous performance of religious rituals and payment from Wakf Board established de jure possession – Use of property on specific days for decades sufficient to claim protection of possession in law – Defendant failed to prove lease or legal title to override claim [Paras 7–17, 23–26].

Possession of Open Land – Sacred Use – Principle of De Jure Possession Applied – Court invoked Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, AIR 2008 SC 2033 – Held: In case of vacant land, possession follows title or long-standing user – Plaintiff’s long uninterrupted performance of religious duties and receipt of payment from Wakf Board signified lawful possession – Defendant’s unproven claim of lease and lack of business activity on date of suit weakened defence [Paras 18–22, 29–31].

Burden of Proof – Section 106 Evidence Act – Defendant Failed to Prove Lease or Legal Transfer – Court held: Plaintiff proved possession; burden shifted to defendant to establish lease and continuity of possession post brother’s death – Defendant failed to summon Wakf Board or produce supporting evidence – Defendant’s plea rightly rejected by Appellate Court – Trial Court had erred in this regard [Paras 24–30].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Injunction Decree Affirmed – Costs Awarded Throughout – High Court upheld the decree of permanent injunction granted by the First Appellate Court – Found no legal error or perversity warranting interference under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed with costs [Paras 32–34].
 

Taxation Law - International Taxation – Transponder Services – Definition of “Royalty” under DTAA and Domestic Law – Matter Remanded – The appellant sought to contest the withholding tax obligation on payments to Intelsat Corporation for transponder services, arguing the payments did not amount to "royalty" under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA – The Court noted that none of the lower authorities properly analysed the agreement or determined the nature of services – Held: Without factual findings on the nature of services, the question of law cannot be adjudicated; matter remanded to CIT(A) for factual determination and analysis of whether services fall under “secret process” or “royalty” under DTAA or the Act [Paras 20-35].

Withholding Tax – Retrospective Amendments – No Liability for Payments Made Before 2012 – The Finance Act, 2012 introduced Explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) expanding the definition of “royalty” – Held: For assessment years where payments were made before the amendment, no withholding tax liability arises due to the retrospective effect being inapplicable to withholding obligations – Followed: Reliance Industries Ltd. [Paras 37-40].

Double Taxation Relief – Application of Section 90(2) – Most Beneficial Provision to Apply – The Court reaffirmed that in treaty cases, as per Section 90(2), the taxpayer is entitled to rely on whichever law (domestic or DTAA) is more beneficial – Remanded for CIT(A) to determine applicability of treaty protection and PE status of Intelsat Corporation in India – If Intelsat is not taxable in India, no TDS liability can arise on Viacom 18 [Paras 21-22, 35-36].

Remand – Lack of Factual Determination – Non-Speaking Orders Set Aside – The Court held that the authorities failed to discharge their duty to examine and record findings on the technical agreement and the definition of “process” under the DTAA – Such absence of foundational facts renders the orders unsustainable – Appeals remanded for fresh decision on merits [Paras 27-34].
 

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought rejection of the plaint on grounds of vague and insufficient averments regarding the claimed freight charges and services rendered – Trial court rejected the application holding cause of action disclosed in plaint and documents – Held: While examining Order 7 Rule 11, courts may consider documents filed with plaint under Order 7 Rule 14 – If the plaint and accompanying documents disclose necessary facts to support a claim, rejection is unwarranted – Court reiterated that rejection of plaint is a drastic measure, to be used sparingly where no arguable case exists – Petition dismissed as the plaint, read with documents, disclosed sufficient cause of action [Paras 13–18].

Decision – Rejection of Plaint Denied – Petition under Article 227 Dismissed – Delhi High Court upheld trial court’s finding that the plaint, supported by invoices and records, disclosed a valid cause of action – Reiterated narrow scope of Order 7 Rule 11 and cautioned against its liberal invocation where triable issues exist [Paras 17–18].

Company Law – Criminal Complaint – Vicarious Liability Absent – Summons Quashed – Petitioners challenged prosecution under Section 147(2) of the Companies Act for failure to display company name and address as per statutory requirement – Held: Directors not holding office at the time of alleged default cannot be held liable – Complaint lacked specific averments of role or responsibility of accused in day-to-day affairs – Judicial mind not applied by Magistrate in issuing summons – Proceedings quashed [Paras 11–14, 17–19].

Criminal Procedure – Limitation under Section 468 CrPC – Cognizance Beyond Prescribed Period – Proceedings Barred – Alleged violation took place between 2003–2004 and came to knowledge on 24.06.2005 – Complaint filed only on 05.09.2006 – Held: Action barred under Section 468 CrPC which mandates six-month limitation where maximum sentence is fine only – Magistrate failed to consider bar of limitation – Complaint not maintainable [Paras 5, 16].

Issuance of Process – Mechanical Exercise Without Prima Facie Case – Proceedings Liable to be Quashed – Held: Summons cannot be issued without specific material showing role and liability – Complaint was vague, lacked particulars, and no role of individual Directors shown – Reference made to Supreme Court precedents on necessity of specific allegations and active role in conduct of business [Paras 13, 18–19].

Decision – Criminal Revisions Allowed – Entire Proceedings Quashed – Magistrate's Order Set Aside – Calcutta High Court allowed all criminal revisions, quashed complaint and all proceedings in C/9496/2006 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta – Noted failure of prosecution to show vicarious liability or file within limitation period – Magistrate’s order issuing process held mechanically passed [Paras 20–21].
 

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Matrimonial Dispute and Digital Harassment – Bail Granted – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in relation to FIR No. 119/2025 involving serious allegations by complainant-wife including physical assault, snatching of mobile phone, coercion, and unauthorized financial transactions – Court held that, despite nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of limited duration would suffice for investigation – Bail granted with conditions including cooperation, surrender of electronic devices, and periodic attendance [Paras 3–12].

Investigative Cooperation – Conditional Bail – Electronic Evidence to be Surrendered – Petitioners directed to appear before investigating officer, undergo custodial interrogation, and then be released on bail – Conditions included surrendering electronic devices (phones, laptops), regular attendance before IO, and restriction on tampering with evidence or leaving jurisdiction – Violation to invite cancellation of bail [Para 12].

Decision – Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions – Petition Allowed – Court allowed the anticipatory bail petition, permitted limited custodial interrogation, and imposed strict conditions including bail bond of ₹50,000 each, cooperation with investigation, and weekly police attendance – Clarified that violation of conditions may result in bail cancellation [Para 12].

Land Acquisition – Valuation – 2013 Act to Apply Despite 1894 Initiation – Compensation Recalculated – Although reference was made under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, since no award had been made when the 2013 Act came into force, the provisions of the 2013 Act applied as per Section 24(1)(a) – Held: Market value to be assessed as per highest pre-notification sale deed (Rs.6,02,500/- less value of structure Rs.49,956/-) resulting in Rs.5,52,544/- per cottah as just compensation – Average pricing discarded; market value under Section 26(1)(a) preferred over average sale price [Paras 21–29, 43–45].

Procedural Fairness – No Objection Filed by State – No Right to Lead Evidence – State failed to file written objections under Section 18 reference; thus barred from introducing additional evidence – Referral Court rightly relied on unopposed documents submitted by claimant – Additional evidence application dismissed [Paras 30–32, 44].

Statutory Interest – Sections 72 and 80 of 2013 Act – Direction to Ascertain Date of Possession – Held: Interest on excess compensation and delayed payment under Sections 72 and 80 is statutory – Referral Court directed to ascertain actual date of possession and award due interest accordingly – Absence of such interest in original award found to be legal error [Paras 56–60].

Date of Award – Governor’s Approval Not Required Under 2013 Act – Argument Rejected – Claimant’s argument that compensation should run till Governor’s assent was rejected – Held: 2013 Act does not require Government approval for validity of award; award date remains July 30, 2015 [Paras 47–55].

Decision – Appeals Allowed in Part – Referral Court Award Set Aside – Matter Remanded – Both appeals partly allowed – Market value fixed at Rs.5,52,544/- per cottah – Solatium under Section 30 and interest under Sections 30(3), 72 and 80 directed to be computed – Matter remanded to Referral Court to determine date of possession and recalculate compensation with multipliers and statutory interest – To be completed within 8 months [Paras 62–64].
 

Defamation – Injunctive Relief – Prima Facie Defamatory Content on Social Media – Ad Interim Injunction Granted – Plaintiff, a sitting Cabinet Minister, filed suit against Defendants for uploading multiple YouTube videos containing reckless and baseless allegations targeting his character and conduct – The Court noted that the defamatory nature of the videos was prima facie evident from the transcripts and that publication continued even after a cease-and-desist notice – Held: Defendants No.1 and 2 restrained from publishing or republishing defamatory content about the Plaintiff and directed to take down the six offending videos pending final adjudication – Ad interim injunction granted in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c) [Paras 4–11].