ITAT Delhi holds that repayment of loans with interest before scrutiny proceedings, coupled with banking trail, establishes genuineness under Section 68, overturning arbitrary additions.
ITAT Delhi holds that penalty under Section 271B cannot be imposed for failure to file audit report when no books of account were maintained, as Section 44AB presupposes prior compliance with Section 44AA.
ITAT clarifies that registration under Section 80G(5) cannot be denied solely due to religious objects if religious expenditure is under 5% of total income, reinforcing statutory threshold.
ITAT condones 12-day delay in filing appeal due to medical emergency of authorized representative, emphasizing procedural fairness over technicality in income tax litigation.
Bombay High Court holds that statutory tenancy under Maharashtra Tenancy Act can only be extinguished through Section 15 surrender; mere oral statement in Section 32G proceedings does not terminate rights.
Bombay High Court denies anticipatory bail in a Rs.25 crore public fund fraud case, emphasizing custodial interrogation necessity for economic offences involving forged documents and systemic corruption.
Bombay High Court grants bail in POCSO case involving 17-year-old victim in consensual relationship, clarifying that consent is irrelevant but circumstances may justify bail under Article 21.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2025 is a big moment for corporate legal teams in India. For the first time, the Court talked directly about the role of in-house lawyers and clarified how attorney–client privilege works under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). The ruling gives clarity, but it also leaves a few gaps that create confusion about how much protection in-house lawyers actually get.