Income Tax - Advance Tax - Liability to Pay - Civil Appeals addressing whether interest under Section 234B can be levied on tax calculated based on book profits under Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Whether advance tax was payable on book profits under Section 115JA. [Paras 1-10]

Provisions Interpretation - Sections 115JA and 115JB - Held - Specific provisions for MAT (Minimum Alternate Tax) companies under Sections 115JA and 115JB do not exclude the applicability of Sections 234B and 234C - MAT companies liable to pay advance tax and interest under Sections 234B and 234C in case of defaults. [Paras 7-10]

Conflict of Judgments - Kwality Biscuits Case - Karnataka High Court's judgment in Kwality Biscuits Ltd. (2000) not applicable - Differentiation by subsequent judgment in Jindal Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (2006) - Section 115JB a self-contained code. [Paras 9-10]

Decision - Appeals by Revenue Allowed - Assessee's failure to pay advance tax under MAT provisions incurs interest under Sections 234B and 234C - CBDT Circular No. 13/2001 non-applicable to MAT companies - Interest levied justified. [Para 10]

Motor Vehicles Act - Accident Arising Out of Use of Motor Vehicle - Civil Appeal against High Court decision allowing compensation for victims of a fire and explosion following a road accident involving a petrol tanker - Supreme Court upholds High Court’s decision based on precedent.

Interpretation of 'Use of Motor Vehicle' - Held - Explosion and fire in the petrol tanker resulting from an earlier road accident constitute an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle - Prior Supreme Court judgment in Shivaji Dayanu Patil applied.

Binding Nature of Precedents - Held - Tribunal must follow Supreme Court's interpretation when facts remain unchanged - Supreme Court’s decision in Shivaji Dayanu Patil is binding and conclusive on similar facts.

Decision: Appeal dismissed, affirming High Court’s judgment granting compensation to the victims.

Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentence Modification - Criminal Appeal against High Court's order converting acquittal to conviction under Section 302 IPC - Incident involving a drunken quarrel where the appellant inflicted a fatal blow with a spade on the deceased - Supreme Court held that the act lacked premeditated intent to kill, thereby warranting conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC - Sentence reduced to five years of rigorous imprisonment with benefit of period already undergone - High Court's judgment modified accordingly. [Paras 1-11]

Analysis of Intent and Circumstances - Evaluation of evidence from eye-witnesses and extra-judicial confessions - Held - Evidence established the occurrence of the quarrel and subsequent fatal blow - Accused acted under circumstances of removing a drunken and adamant individual from his house, resulting in an unintended fatal injury - Supreme Court emphasized the absence of premeditated intent to murder, altering the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC. [Para 9-10]

Decision - Modification of Conviction and Sentence - Appeal partly allowed by modifying the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC - Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years awarded with deduction for the period already undergone - High Court's conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside, modifying it under Section 304 Part II IPC. [Para 11]

Criminal Law – Insanity Plea – Appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act – Appellant claimed insanity at the time of the offence, invoking Section 84 IPC – The trial court and High Court rejected the insanity plea, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court – The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant was of unsound mind at the time of the incident – Held that the evidence did not support the appellant’s claim of insanity, and the plea of legal insanity under Section 84 IPC was not established – Conviction and sentence upheld. [Paras 1-13]

Legal Insanity vs. Medical Insanity – Analysis – Held – Differentiation between legal and medical insanity – Legal insanity must be established to absolve criminal liability – Appellant’s behavior post-offence indicated awareness of wrongdoing – Medical evidence insufficient to prove incapacity to understand nature of act at the time of crime – Prescriptions and mental health records did not conclusively prove unsoundness of mind at the crucial time. [Para 9-11]

Onus of Proof – Section 105 Evidence Act – Held – Burden of proving insanity lies on the accused – Proof required by preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant failed to discharge this burden – Evidence showed appellant knew the nature and wrongness of the act. [Para 10]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – Supreme Court dismisses appeal – Reiterates requirement for clear and convincing evidence to establish legal insanity – Finds no merit in the appellant’s plea, upholding the conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. [Para 13]

Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentence Modification - Criminal Appeal against High Court's order converting acquittal to conviction under Section 302 IPC - Incident involving a drunken quarrel where the appellant inflicted a fatal blow with a spade on the deceased - Supreme Court held that the act lacked premeditated intent to kill, thereby warranting conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC - Sentence reduced to five years of rigorous imprisonment with benefit of period already undergone - High Court's judgment modified accordingly. [Paras 1-11]

Analysis of Intent and Circumstances - Evaluation of evidence from eye-witnesses and extra-judicial confessions - Held - Evidence established the occurrence of the quarrel and subsequent fatal blow - Accused acted under circumstances of removing a drunken and adamant individual from his house, resulting in an unintended fatal injury - Supreme Court emphasized the absence of premeditated intent to murder, altering the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC. [Para 9-10]

Decision - Modification of Conviction and Sentence - Appeal partly allowed by modifying the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC - Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years awarded with deduction for the period already undergone - High Court's conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside, modifying it under Section 304 Part II IPC. [Para 11]

Criminal Law – Insanity Plea – Appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act – Appellant claimed insanity at the time of the offence, invoking Section 84 IPC – The trial court and High Court rejected the insanity plea, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court – The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant was of unsound mind at the time of the incident – Held that the evidence did not support the appellant’s claim of insanity, and the plea of legal insanity under Section 84 IPC was not established – Conviction and sentence upheld. [Paras 1-13]

Legal Insanity vs. Medical Insanity – Analysis – Held – Differentiation between legal and medical insanity – Legal insanity must be established to absolve criminal liability – Appellant’s behavior post-offence indicated awareness of wrongdoing – Medical evidence insufficient to prove incapacity to understand nature of act at the time of crime – Prescriptions and mental health records did not conclusively prove unsoundness of mind at the crucial time. [Para 9-11]

Onus of Proof – Section 105 Evidence Act – Held – Burden of proving insanity lies on the accused – Proof required by preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant failed to discharge this burden – Evidence showed appellant knew the nature and wrongness of the act. [Para 10]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – Supreme Court dismisses appeal – Reiterates requirement for clear and convincing evidence to establish legal insanity – Finds no merit in the appellant’s plea, upholding the conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. [Para 13]

Taxation Law – Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) – Adjustment of Revaluation Reserves – Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act – Civil Appeal against disallowance of reduction of revaluation reserve withdrawn for depreciation adjustment – Supreme Court held that revaluation reserves credited to the P&L Account cannot be excluded from book profits unless they had increased book profits in the year of creation – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-25]

Treatment of Revaluation Reserves – Analysis – Held – Revaluation reserves created for adjustment in balance sheet do not impact net profits in the year of creation – Adjustments in subsequent years must reflect actual impact on P&L Account – Proviso to Section 115JB(2) applicable only if reserves had increased book profits when created. [Para 19-20]

Decision – No Reduction of Revaluation Reserve in MAT Calculation – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower authorities disallowing the reduction of the revaluation reserve from book profits – Creation of such reserves without affecting book profits disqualifies subsequent exclusion during MAT calculation. [Para 24-25]

Industrial Law - Transfer of Undertakings - Continuation of Proceedings Post Repeal of Act -

Appeal against the High Court order dismissing application for recovery of loan under repealed Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984. The Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. (IIBIL), as the successor to the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India (IRBI), sought to enforce claims against Jain Cables Pvt. Ltd. The High Court held the application under Section 40 of the 1984 Act as not maintainable post repeal. The Supreme Court held that Section 13(2)(b) of the 1997 Act allows continuation of proceedings initiated under the 1984 Act. High Court’s order set aside, application restored for merit-based examination. [Paras 1-12]

Effect of Repeal on Existing Rights and Liabilities - Interpretation of Saving Clause -

Examines the impact of repeal on ongoing legal actions. The 1997 Act, specifically Section 13(2)(b), permits the continuation of claims and enforcement actions commenced under the 1984 Act by its successor, IIBIL. The Court found the High Court's interpretation of the repeal and saving provisions erroneous. Repeal does not abrogate substantive rights or proceedings in relation to undertakings transferred to IIBIL. [Para 10-12]

Decision - Restoration of Application Under Repealed Act - Appeal Allowed -

Supreme Court holds that IIBIL's application under Section 40 of the 1984 Act is maintainable. High Court’s dismissal reversed. Proceedings reinstated for adjudication on merits. The appeal is allowed, and S.B.C. Misc. Application No. 40/99 is restored for consideration. [Para 12]

Criminal Law - Evidence - Confessional Statement - Rejection by Trial Court - Appeal by Government - High Court Reversed Acquittal Based on Confession and Circumstantial Evidence - Supreme Court Reaffirmed Acquittal -

Criminal Law - Confession - Rejection by Trial Court - High Court Conviction based on Confessional Statement - The appellant, initially acquitted by the trial court, was convicted by the High Court based on his alleged confessional statement and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court found the confession unreliable and unsupported by witness testimony. Held, confession, unsupported and repudiated by the accused, cannot form the sole basis for conviction. [Paras 1-25]

Recovery of Evidence - Limca Bottle with Cyanide - Forensic Report - High Court Found Guilt Based on Recovered Evidence - Supreme Court Found Recovery Suspect and Evidence Tainted -

Evidence - Recovery of Limca Bottle - The prosecution claimed recovery of an empty Limca bottle containing cyanide from the appellant's residence. The Supreme Court found inconsistencies in the recovery process and the handling of evidence, deeming the recovery suspect. Held, recovery and forensic analysis tainted and unreliable to support conviction. [Paras 26-31]

Acquittal - Lack of Conclusive Evidence - Suspicion Not Equivalent to Proof - Supreme Court Reversed High Court's Conviction and Restored Trial Court's Acquittal -

Criminal Law - Standard of Proof - Suspicion vs. Proof - The Supreme Court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. Held, prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction by the High Court set aside, and acquittal by the trial court restored. [Para 32-33]

Decision:

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, restored the trial court's judgment acquitting the appellant, and directed the appellant's release from jail unless required in connection with any other criminal case. The appeal is allowed. [Para 33]