Income Tax Law - Deduction under Section 80HHC - Inclusion of Scrap Sale Proceeds in Total Turnover – Appeals arising from the High Court judgment which approved the exclusion of scrap sale proceeds from total turnover for deduction calculations under Section 80HHC – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view – It was held that sale proceeds from scrap, which is a by-product and not the primary product, should not be included in total turnover – The intention behind Section 80HHC is to encourage exports and maximize foreign exchange earnings, thus the exclusion of scrap sales aligns with the legislative purpose. [Paras 1-30]

Meaning of Total Turnover - Accounting and Commercial Parlance – Analysis – The term "turnover" is not defined in the Income Tax Act – Supreme Court relies on ordinary accounting parlance and guidelines from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) – "Turnover" should refer to the sale proceeds of the primary goods in which the business deals, not ancillary sales such as scrap – Inclusion of scrap proceeds would distort the true financial performance of exporters and reduce the incentives provided by Section 80HHC. [Paras 17-26]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax were dismissed – The Court found the High Court's interpretation consistent with normal accounting practices and the purpose of Section 80HHC – No costs were ordered. [Para 30]

Referred Cases:

Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram v. K. Ravindranathan Nair (2007) 213 CTR 227

Criminal Law - Sentencing - Reduction of Sentence by High Court – Appeal against High Court decision reducing the sentence of the primary respondent, Surajbhan Singh, from five years to seven days for grievous harm – Original conviction included offences under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 326, 323 IPC – High Court altered the conviction to Section 308 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 – Supreme Court held that the reduction of sentence was unjustified given the severity of the crime and the impact on the victim – Directed rigorous imprisonment of two years for the primary respondent. [Paras 1-36]

Principles of Sentencing - Adequate Punishment – Analysis of sentencing principles – Emphasized the need for sentences to reflect the gravity of the offence and its impact on society – Highlighted that undue leniency undermines public confidence in the justice system and fails to protect societal interests – Referenced established jurisprudence on the necessity of proportionate punishment. [Para 19-21, 24, 26-28]

Right of Private Defence - Application – Consideration of the right of private defence claimed by respondents – Supreme Court found no merit in the plea of private defence as the accused were the aggressors – Evidence demonstrated premeditated attack on the unarmed victims engaged in peaceful agricultural activities. [Para 16-17]

Decision – Enhancement of Sentence – The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s sentence and directed Surajbhan Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years apart from the fine imposed – Emphasized that the discretion in sentencing must be exercised with regard to judicial principles and not whimsically. [Para 32]

Referred Cases:

Ramji Dayawala and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import, AIR 1981 SC 2085

Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravinder Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15

Sevaka Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1991 SC 1463

State of U.P. v. Dharmendra Singh, AIR 1999 SC 3789

State of Rajasthan v. Manoj Kumar, (2014) AIR SCW 2339

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem @ Chamaru, AIR 2005 SC 3996

Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2004) 11 SCC 585

State of M.P. v. Najab Khan, (2014) 9 SCC 509

P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam, AIR 1980 SC 856

Chandrakant Patil v. State through CBI, AIR 1998 SC 1165

U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 633

Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26

Rattiram v. State of M.P., AIR 2012 SC 1485

The State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, AIR 2000 SC 1478

Vidhya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 1857

Ravji alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1996 SC 787

Mahesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 1346

Sikandar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2010 SC 3580

Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar, (2014) 9 SCC 516

State of Rajasthan v. Kishanlal, AIR 2002 SC 2250

Shyam Narain v. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2013 SC 2209

Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2012 SC 4416

Jameel v. State of U.P., AIR 2010 SC 345

Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly and Common Object - Conviction and Sentence - Appeal against High Court judgment altering conviction and sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC - Prosecution failed to establish presence and specific overt acts of accused Nos. 6 and 7 during the occurrence - Absence of their names in FIR and lack of corroborative eyewitness testimony - Appellants acquitted on benefit of doubt.

Presence and Role of Accused in Unlawful Assembly - Analysis - Held - Conviction requires proof of active participation or common object - Mere presence insufficient for conviction under Sections 147, 148 IPC - Testimonies failed to attribute any specific role to appellants in the assault - Legal threshold for sustaining conviction not met. [Para 13]

Decision - Acquittal of Appellants - Court allows appeals, setting aside conviction and sentences - Appellants acquitted of all charges due to insufficient evidence proving their involvement in the crime - Directed to be released unless required in connection with any other case. [Para 14]

Referred Cases:

Criminal Procedure – Authority to File Complaint – Criminal Appeal against the High Court’s order quashing a complaint filed by the Deputy Registrar (Administration), Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, against respondents for conspiracy and forgery in judicial proceedings – Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, holding that the complaint lacked valid authorization from the Allahabad High Court. – Held, complaint unauthorized and proceedings based on it invalid. [Paras 1-25]

Sanction for Prosecution – Analysis – Held – Sanction from the High Court necessary for filing a complaint under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC – The High Court and subsequent fact-finding enquiry confirmed no such sanction or authorization was given to the complainant by the Allahabad High Court. – The unauthorized complaint rendered further procedural considerations irrelevant. [Paras 14, 18, 19]

Jurisdiction – Magistrate's Cognizance – Analysis – Held – Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of an unauthorized complaint – The absence of valid authorization from the competent authority nullified the initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondents. [Paras 20, 21]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the CBI, confirming the High Court’s decision to quash the complaint due to the lack of authorization from the Allahabad High Court – Emphasized adherence to procedural requirements for valid prosecution. [Para 22]

Referred Cases:

U.P. Junior Doctors' Action Committee vs. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and Others, AIR 1991 SC 909

Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another, AIR 2005 SC 2119

Income Tax Law - Carry Forward and Set Off of Losses - Amalgamating Co-operative Societies - Interpretation of Provisions - Appeal against the High Court’s decision affirming the Income Tax authorities' refusal to allow the appellant society to carry forward and set off losses of amalgamating cooperative societies - Appeal dismissed on grounds that cooperative societies cannot carry forward losses post-amalgamation due to lack of specific provision under the Income Tax Act. [Paras 1-23]

Taxation Statutes - Strict Interpretation - No Equity in Tax Matters - Held that tax statutes must be interpreted strictly, and benefits explicitly provided to one class (companies) under Section 72(A) of the Income Tax Act cannot be extended to another class (cooperative societies) in the absence of specific provision. [Paras 17-22]

Equality Before Law - Article 14 - Cooperative Societies vs Companies - Differentiation between cooperative societies and companies upheld as not violative of Article 14 - Cooperative societies and companies considered distinct classes under tax law, justifying differential treatment. [Para 20]

Decision: Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs. The appellant society cannot carry forward and set off the losses of the amalgamated cooperative societies in absence of explicit statutory provision. [Para 23]

Constitutional Law - Doctrine of Prospective Overruling - Civil Appeals against High Court order - High Court declared certain Government Orders (G.O.Ms. No. 14 and 22) under Andhra Pradesh Labour Subordinate Service Rules as unconstitutional - Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly struck down the impugned orders but invoked the doctrine of prospective overruling - Past promotions made under the invalidated rules preserved to prevent administrative difficulties and undue harshness - Appeals allowed, and past actions validated. [Paras 1-19]

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling - Scope and Application - Supreme Court reiterated that this doctrine is primarily applied by the highest court to avoid unjust results from retrospective application of newly declared legal principles - Applied in this case to preserve promotions made before 7th November 2001, when the relevant law was unsettled - Emphasized balancing of equity and administrative fairness. [Paras 8-18]

Impact of Prospective Overruling - Judicial Craftsmanship - Highlighted the pragmatic approach to ensure justice and prevent administrative chaos - Recognized the necessity of maintaining stability in government services and preventing cascading adverse effects on non-parties - Reaffirmed that High Courts cannot generally invoke this doctrine, but the Supreme Court can to ensure complete justice under Article 142. [Paras 16-19]

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Supreme Court set aside High Court's order to the extent it invalidated promotions made under the impugned G.O.Ms before 7th November 2001 - Reiterated the power to apply prospective overruling - Contempt petitions dismissed as proceedings rendered moot by the decision. [Paras 19-20]

Land Reforms - Right to Water - Civil Appeal against High Court's reversal of lower court findings - High Court held Section 36 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 applicable only to tenancy land, not ownership land - Supreme Court clarifies Section 36 protects tenant's pre-existing right to water, which continues even after tenant becomes landowner - Original plaintiff, as new landowner, retains right to well water as per registered lease agreement and mutation in revenue records - High Court's decision set aside - Appeal allowed - Judgment and decree of Trial Court and First Appellate Court affirmed. [Paras 1-15]

Tenant's Right to Water - Analysis - Held - Section 36 ensures landlords cannot curtail or terminate tenant's pre-existing water rights upon enactment of the Act - Once tenant becomes landowner under Section 104(3), such water rights are preserved - High Court's interpretation incorrect - Tenant's transition to landowner does not nullify right to irrigation. [Para 10-14]

Decision - Preservation of Water Rights upon Transition to Landownership - Supreme Court sets aside High Court's judgment - Confirms original plaintiff's right to well water for irrigation, as established by lease agreement and revenue records - Judgment and decree of lower courts restored. [Para 15]

Civil Procedure – Substitution of Legal Representatives – Condonation of Delay – Dismissal for Non-prosecution – High Court rejected applications for substitution, setting aside dismissal for non-prosecution, and condonation of delay in substitution after death of original plaintiff – Appellant claimed ignorance of procedural requirements – Supreme Court held no valid grounds for condonation of delay – Appeal dismissed for lack of merit – High Court decision upheld. [Paras 1-15]

Substitution of Legal Representatives – Application Under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC – Analysis – Held – Appellant, widow of deceased plaintiff, failed to file timely substitution application – Alleged family settlement insufficient to exclude other legal heirs – Procedural requirements clear and unfulfilled – High Court properly dismissed application for substitution and setting aside abatement. [Paras 8-14]

Condonation of Delay – Application Under Section 5 of Limitation Act – Analysis – Held – Appellant’s plea of ignorance not justifiable – Delay of over seven years in filing substitution application deemed inordinate and inexcusable – High Court’s rejection of condonation application upheld. [Paras 11-14]

Decision – Dismissal of Civil Appeals – Court affirms High Court’s rejection of applications for substitution, condonation of delay, and setting aside non-prosecution dismissal – Appeals dismissed for lack of merit – No costs awarded. [Paras 15]

Constitutional Law – Article 254 – Repugnancy between State and Central Legislation – Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 and Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 – Held – No repugnancy between the two Acts as they operate in different fields – Central Act regulates private security agencies, while State Act focuses on welfare and employment conditions of security guards in Maharashtra – Both Acts can operate concurrently without conflict. [Paras 43-51]

Welfare Legislation – Labour Welfare – State Act regulating employment conditions and welfare of private security guards in Maharashtra – State Act upheld as constitutional – Not violative of Articles 14 and 19 – Restrictions imposed by State Act deemed reasonable and in the interest of labour welfare. [Paras 52-53]

Legislative Competence – Article 246 – Competence of Parliament and State Legislatures – Parliament has supreme power to legislate on entries in List-I and List-III of the Seventh Schedule – State Legislature competent to enact welfare legislation under Entry 24 of List-III. [Paras 44-47]

Doctrine of Occupied Field – Repugnancy test – Only applicable if both State and Central Laws relate to the same entry in the Concurrent List and there is a direct conflict – State Act and Central Act found to regulate different subjects – No irreconcilable inconsistency. [Paras 50-51]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 upheld – Found to operate concurrently with the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 – Contempt petitions disposed of accordingly. [Paras 54-55]