#substantial question of law

Karnataka High Court sets a precedent by dismissing a landowner's appeal under Section 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act after he accepted compensation, delayed filing for nine years, and failed to disclose a prior Lok Adalat settlement. The ruling reinforces that courts will not entertain appeals constituting abuse of process, protecting finality in land acquisition disputes.

Allahabad HC reaffirms that rectification under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act is confined to mistakes evident on the record alone. The court held that issues like delay condonation or precedent application-requiring debate or interpretation-cannot be reviewed as apparent errors, impacting assessees seeking relief from appellate orders.

ITAT Mumbai holds that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when the tax dispute involves a substantial question of law already admitted by the High Court, recognizing such claims as bona fide and not constituting concealment. This shields taxpayers from punitive action when legal uncertainty exists at the appellate level, reinforcing the principle that penalty requires deliberate intent, not mere disagreement with tax authorities.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a registered sale deed over 30 years old under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act creates a conclusive presumption of title, dismissing the second appeal for lack of a substantial question of law. The court directed defendants to deliver vacant possession within three months, reinforcing the evidentiary weight of long-standing registered documents in property disputes.