Income Tax – Bad Debt – Assessee’s claim for writing off Rs. 10 crores as a bad debt disallowed – Amount advanced to developer not substantiated by material evidence – Mere provision for doubtful debt not sufficient under Section 36(1)(vii) after 1.4.1989 – Supreme Court held that the deduction was not allowable as conditions under Section 36(2) were not met – Claim for deduction under Section 37 also not applicable since the expenditure related to acquisition of capital asset [Paras 1-24].

Interpretation of Sections – Distinction between Write Off and Provision – Section 36(1)(vii) distinguishes between write off and provision for doubtful debt – Provision for doubtful debt not included under ‘written off’ bad debt – Section 37 does not apply if item falls under Sections 30 to 36 but is excluded by Explanation to Section 36(1)(vii) [Paras 13-17].

Conditions for Deduction – Compliance Required – Assessee must satisfy conditions of Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(2) – Written off debt must be taken into account in computing income – Expenditure must relate to business and not capital stream to claim under Section 37 [Paras 12-20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court and ITAT orders set aside – Revenue’s appeal succeeds – No order on costs [Paras 24].

Urban Development – Transferable Development Rights (TDR) – Calculation of FSI – Appellants contested the reduction of TDR from 100% FSI to 4% FSI by the Chief Minister of Maharashtra – The land was originally not designated under 'Hill Top/Hill Slope' zone but reserved for park purposes – Supreme Court found the cancellation of the original TDR and reduction to 4% FSI arbitrary – Directed respondents to restore possession of the land to appellants and compensate for the deprivation of land use [Paras 1-32].

Promissory Estoppel – Legitimate Expectation – Appellants surrendered land to the Pune Municipal Corporation based on the assurance of TDR @ 100% FSI – Application of promissory estoppel against the State – Supreme Court held respondents accountable to their original promise – State's retraction considered unjustifiable [Paras 13-14, 27].

Administrative Procedure – Reliance on Erroneous Legal Opinion – Respondents relied on an incorrect legal opinion regarding TDR calculation – No subsequent attempt to correct the error or seek fresh opinion – Supreme Court criticized the lack of transparency and due diligence in administrative decision-making [Paras 24-26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment quashed – Respondents directed to return possession of the land to appellants within four weeks – Appellants entitled to use the land for residential purposes – Compensation awarded to appellants at ₹1 crore per year from 2004 for the deprivation of land use [Paras 31-32].

Electricity Law – Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) – Change in Law – Adani Power entitled to carrying cost with compound interest – Dispute arose from a Change in Law event requiring Adani Power to install Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) unit – Appellants contested compound interest on carrying cost, arguing for simple interest – Supreme Court upheld compound interest, emphasizing restitutionary principles and time value for money [Paras 1-20].

Restitutionary Principles – Compound Interest – Carrying Cost – Appellate Tribunal correctly applied compound interest to carrying cost – Supreme Court affirmed that restitution required full compensation for interest paid by Adani Power to banks – Restitutionary principle embedded in Article 13 of the PPA applied for compensating affected party to original economic position as if Change in Law event had not occurred [Paras 12-19].

Statutory Interpretation – No explicit prohibition on compound interest in Electricity Act, 2003 or PPAs – Supreme Court rejected argument that compound interest was not covered – Emphasized interpretation aligned with restitution and fair compensation principles [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellate Tribunal's decision upheld – Adani Power entitled to compound interest on carrying cost from the date of Change in Law event (29th January 2014) until actual payment [Paras 20].

Consumer Law – Refund and Interest – State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission directed refund of Rs. 21.18 lakhs with 9% simple interest per annum due to incomplete construction – National Commission reduced the refund amount to Rs. 16.18 lakhs – Supreme Court found National Commission's partial reversal erroneous – Order of State Commission restored – Respondent directed to comply within two months if not already refunded [Paras 1-6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of National Commission set aside – Order of State Commission dated 15.10.2020 restored – Respondent to refund Rs. 21.18 lakhs with 9% simple interest per annum from 19.01.2015 till realization and Rs. 5000 as litigation expenses within two months from today if not already refunded [Paras 4-6].

FERA – Limitation – Reasonable Period – Show cause notices issued in 2002 for transactions from 1992-1993 – Supreme Court held such delay unreasonable – Proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable period when no statutory period is prescribed – Eight-year record preservation limit under Banking Companies Rules supports unreasonableness of delayed notices – High Court's setting aside of proceedings upheld [Paras 18-27].

Administrative Law – Policy and Procedure – Reasonable Time – Proceedings initiated under statute without prescribed limitation period must be within reasonable time – Cited cases emphasize necessity of timeliness in administrative actions to ensure fairness – Delays beyond standard record-keeping durations viewed as unreasonable [Paras 19-23, 25-27].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgments upheld – Show cause notices and proceedings initiated under FERA after long delays declared invalid [Paras 28-29].

Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Private Unaided Minority Institution – High Court held writ petition maintainable against termination order by private unaided minority institution – Supreme Court found High Court erred – Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 maintainable only if public duty element present – Service disputes of private nature without statutory backing not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Education Law – Service Contracts – CBSE Affiliation Byelaws – Dispute between private educational institution and employee purely contractual – Terms of service governed by CBSE Byelaws lack statutory force – Remedy for breach of service contract lies in civil suits, not writ petitions.

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable – Remedy lies in approaching appropriate civil forum.

Service Tax – Consulting Engineer vs. Works Contract – Services such as erection, installation, and commissioning of goods at customer sites cannot be classified as consulting engineer services – Tribunal correctly held that such services fall under works contract and are not liable for service tax as consulting engineering – Revenue's appeal dismissed [Paras 2-4].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal's decision upheld – No service tax liability on works contract for the period in question – No order as to costs [Paras 4-4.1].

Criminal Law – MCOCA – Organized Crime – Confession – Appellants challenged validity of confessions recorded by an Additional Superintendent of Police (Addl. SP) under MCOCA – Supreme Court held that Addl. SPs are not of the same rank as SPs – Confessions recorded by Addl. SPs not admissible under Section 18 MCOCA – High Court's dismissal of writ petitions set aside – FIRs and proceedings quashed.

Statutory Interpretation – Rank of Police Officers – Section 18 MCOCA requires confessions to be recorded by officers not below the rank of SP – Addl. SPs not considered to be of the same rank as SPs under MCOCA – Police Manual and state government notifications cannot override statutory requirements of MCOCA.

Organized Crime – Definition and Scope – MCOCA's applicability limited to activities of organized crime syndicates involving violence or threat of violence – Illegal gambling by itself does not constitute organized crime under MCOCA – Invocation of MCOCA in the present case held inappropriate.

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – FIRs and proceedings quashed – Confessions recorded by Addl. SPs not admissible under Section 18 MCOCA – Respondents directed to comply with this judgment.

Penal Code – Murder by Poisoning – Appellant convicted for murdering wife of informant by mixing poison in milk – Chemical Examiner reports and investigation revealed procedural lapses – Evidence indicated potential tampering with samples and lack of direct proof linking appellant to possession and administration of poison – Supreme Court found prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant acquitted [Paras 1-49].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Evidence – Inconsistent and missing links in evidence chain – Established principles for circumstantial evidence not met – Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and must not merely rest on suspicion [Paras 35-39, 41-49].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court and Trial Court judgments set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged [Paras 49].