Income Tax Act, 1961 — Judgments

Recent judgments citing this act

1. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Hyderabad vs M/s. E_lqr.Sy !9._ on 16 December, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana16 Dec 2023

   Case Name: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Hyderabad vs M/s. E_lqr.Sy !9._ on 16 December, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 16 December, 2023 Bench: P. Sam Koshy & N. Tukaramji Subject: Income Tax Law - Appeal under Section 260-4 of the Income Tax Act - Settlement under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme - Appeal rendered infructuous. Key Legal Propositions 1. An appeal before the High Court becomes infructuous upon settlement of the underlying dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2023. 2. Where a jurisdictional issue exists regarding the adherence to amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly Section 148A, a writ petition challenging an assessment order may be allowed on that basis. 3. The Revenue retains the right to proceed further with assessment if they so choose, from the stage of a prior Supreme Court order permitting them to do so under substituted provisions. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal before the High Court arose from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning assessment year 2015-16. A separate writ petition challenged an assessment order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income

2. Sangapaga Vinayalatha vs The New India Assurance Company Limited on 20 April, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana20 Apr 2023

   Case Name: Sangapaga Vinayalatha vs The New India Assurance Company Limited on 20 April, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 20 April, 2023 Bench: Justice Lalitha Kanneganti Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – Enhancement of Compensation Key Legal Propositions 1. Where the deceased was a government employee, the salary as per the revised pay certificate should be considered for calculating loss of dependency, even if the Tribunal initially considered a lower amount. 2. Future prospects, calculated at 50%, should be added to the annual income for determining loss of dependency. 3. The applicable multiplier for calculating loss of dependency is determined by the age of the deceased, and in this case, a multiplier of '17' was deemed appropriate. Judgment Summary Background: These appeals arise from an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, concerning compensation for the death of S. Krupadanam in a motor vehicle accident. M.A.C.M.A. No. 1321 of 2007 was filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the awarded compensation, while M.A.C.M.A. No. 3232 of 2011 was filed by the Insurance Comp

3. Vijay Raj Sethai vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax on 07 June, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana7 Jun 2023

   Case Name: Vijay Raj Sethai vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax on 07 June, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 07 June, 2023 Bench: Ujjal. Bhuyan, C.J. and N. Tukaramji, J. Subject: Income Tax Law - Block Assessment - Estimation of Profit from Illegal Trade - Validity of Assessment Order Key Legal Propositions 1. In cases involving illegal trade with no maintained books of account, assessing officers have the discretion to estimate undisclosed income reasonably. 2. A profit rate adopted in one case cannot automatically serve as a benchmark in another, especially when the circumstances differ, particularly in illegal trades. 3. The principle of telescoping of undisclosed income requires a reasonable nexus between previously concealed profits and current unexplained cash deficits or credits; mere availability of past undisclosed income is insufficient. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a block assessment initiated following search and seizure operations revealing the appellant’s involvement in the illegal trade of adulterating petrol with N-Flexane oil. The Assessing Officer (AO) estimated the profit at 15% of

4. M/s. Kanumuri Holdings Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax on 19 September, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana19 Sept 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Appeals can be dismissed for want of prosecution when there is no representation on behalf of the appellant despite repeated calls. 2. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated upon dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. 3. The Court has inherent power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution, particularly when the appellant fails to appear despite prior notice. Judgment Summary Background: This Income Tax Tribunal Appeal (ITTA) No. 568 of 2006 arises from an assessment year 2000-01, concerning a dispute regarding income tax assessment. The appellant, M/s. Kanumuri Holdings Private Limited, had preferred the appeal against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and subsequent authorities. A petition for staying recovery of outstanding tax was also filed (I.A No. 1 of 2006). Held: A. On Appeal Dismissal for Non-Prosecution: Majority View: The Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution due to the appellant’s consistent absence despite repeated calls and prior notice. The interim relief previously granted was also vacated. Dissenting View: None. B. On Interim Relief: Majorit

5. M/s. Appellant vs Commissioner of Income Tax on 14 September, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana14 Sept 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Approval of a Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) extinguishes crystallized and unclaimed liabilities of the Corporate Debtor. 2. Appeals become infructuous upon the approval of a Resolution Plan that addresses the underlying issues. 3. Pending miscellaneous petitions are closed upon disposal of the main appeal. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal concerned an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 631/Hyd/2004 for the assessment year 2001-02. The appellant challenged the order dated 25.05.2007 passed by the ITAT. Held: A. On Resolution Plan Approval & Appeal Infructuousness: Majority View: The High Court disposed of the appeal in light of an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad, approving a revised Resolution Plan. The NCLT order extinguished all crystallized and unclaimed liabilities of the Corporate Debtor. Dissenting View: None stated in the provided text. B. On Pending Miscellaneous Petitions: Majority View: Any pending miscellaneous petitions were directed to be closed. Dissenting View: None stated in th

6. M/s. Kakinada SEZ Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 01 August, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana1 Aug 2023

   Case Name: M/s. Kakinada SEZ Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 01 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 01 August, 2023 Bench: P. Sam Koshy & Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, JJ. Subject: Income Tax Law – Condonation of Delay – Limitation Act – Sufficient Cause Key Legal Propositions 1. Condonation of delay is not a matter of routine, especially in cases of significant delay, and requires detailed, cogent, and plausible reasons. 2. Vague or unsatisfactory explanations, such as employee departure or office relocation, are insufficient to justify an inordinate delay of 1729 days in filing an appeal. 3. Courts must consider public policy and the principle that laws assist the vigilant, not the negligent, when deciding applications for condonation of delay. Judgment Summary Background: The Appellant, M/s. Kakinada SEZ Limited, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was delayed by 1729 days, prompting the Appellant to file I.A.No. 1 of 2018 seeking condonation of delay. Held: A. On Condonation of Delay: Majority View: The Court dismissed the ap

7. The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad vs M/s. Shriram Chits Pvt, Ltd, Hyderabad on 09 June, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana9 Jun 2023

   Case Name: The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad vs M/s. Shriram Chits Pvt, Ltd, Hyderabad on 09 June, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 09 June, 2023 Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.J. and C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, J. Subject: Income Tax – Bad Debts, Royalty Payments, Commission on Cancelled Chits – Allowability of Deduction/Expenditure Key Legal Propositions 1. Bad debts arising from chit fund business are allowable as deduction if the organiser takes over the liability of defaulting members, in accordance with CBDT circulars and consistent Tribunal rulings. 2. The point of time for claiming bad debt deduction is flexible, and writing off the debt in the books of accounts is sufficient, particularly after the 1989 amendment to Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Royalty payments for use of a logo/trademark, incurred for business purposes, are revenue expenditure and deductible, as established by precedents including decisions of the Madras High Court and Supreme Court. Judgment Summary Background: These appeals are filed by the Revenue against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning the assessment yea

8. M/s. Shriram Chits Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 07 November, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana7 Nov 2023

   Case Name: M/s. Shriram Chits Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 07 November, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 07 November, 2023 Bench: P. Sam Koshy and N. Tukaramji, JJ. Subject: Income Tax Law – Principle of Mutuality – Chit Fund Income – Rejection of Exemption Claim Key Legal Propositions 1. The principle of mutuality cannot be extended to income earned by a Chit Fund Company. 2. A Division Bench of the High Court has previously held against the application of mutuality principle to chit fund companies. 3. Consistent with prior rulings, appeals concerning the exemption of chit fund income based on mutuality are to be rejected in favour of the Revenue. Judgment Summary Background: These are appeals filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rejecting their claim for exemption of chit fund income based on the principle of mutuality, asserting that the appellant is a business concern. The issue had been previously decided by the same High Court in I.T.A. Nos. 196 of 2006 and connected appeals. Similar appeals were also recently decided on 02.11.2023 in ITTA.No

9. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs M/s. Best India Tabacco Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Guntur on 17 April, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh17 Apr 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 1,00,00,000/- are to be withdrawn as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. 2. Liberty may be granted to restore appeals withdrawn under Circular No. 17 of 2019, if they fall within the exceptions mentioned in Circular No. 3 of 2018. 3. Consistent application of CBDT circulars in similar cases warrants permission to withdraw the appeal. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal pertains to Income Tax Tribunal Appeal No. 276 of 2006, arising from assessment years 1995-1996, concerning a dispute between the Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur and M/s. Best India Tobacco Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Guntur. The appellant sought to withdraw the appeal based on a CBDT circular. Held: A. On Withdrawal of Appeal: Majority View: The Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal, considering the tax effect was less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 and referencing a prior judgment (ITTA No. 185 of 2016) where a similar withdrawal was permitted. Dissenting View: None. B. On Restoration of Appeal: Majority View: The Court granted liberty to the appellant to file an appli

10. Madakam Naga Durga vs Satti Ramana on 13 October, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh13 Oct 2023

    Case Name: Madakam Naga Durga vs Satti Ramana on 13 October, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Date of Judgment: 13 October, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Hon'ble Sri Justice B.V.L.N.Chakravarthi Subject: Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – Quantum of Compensation – Liability – Application of Revised Pay Scales Key Legal Propositions 1. In motor vehicle accident claims, compensation should be based on the deceased’s established income, and future prospects can be considered accordingly. 2. When revised pay scales (like PRC 2015) are applicable to a deceased government employee, the compensation calculation should reflect the revised salary, provided evidence supports its application. 3. In cases involving a hired vehicle, the owner and insurer are primarily liable, and the liability of the hiring entity (APSRTC) may not automatically attach without evidence of negligence or violation of terms. Judgment Summary Background: These appeals arise from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award concerning the death of Madakam Rajulu in a road accident involving an APSRTC bus. The claimants (deceased’s wife, son, parents) sought enhanced

11. Somisetty Venkataramaiah [HUF] vs Asst. CIT on 15 December, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh15 Dec 2023

    Case Name: Somisetty Venkataramaiah [HUF] vs Asst. CIT on 15 December, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Date of Judgment: 15 December, 2023 Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu Subject: Income Tax Law Key Legal Propositions 1. Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution. 3. Closure of pending miscellaneous petitions consequent to the dismissal. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ‘A’, dated 22.06.2007. The appeal concerned Assessment Year 1985-86. Held: A. On Appeal Dismissal: Majority View: The Income Tax Tribunal Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution due to the absence of representation for the appellant. No costs were ordered. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also directed to be closed. Dissenting View: None. B. On Costs: Majority View: No order as to costs was passed. Dissenting View: None. C. On Miscellaneous Petitions: Majority View: Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Dissenting View: N

12. Venka Vasudeva Rao vs. RajKumar Agarwal on 22 September, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh22 Sept 2023

    Case Name: Venka Vasudeva Rao vs. RajKumar Agarwal on 22 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Date of Judgment: 22 September, 2023 Bench: Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao Subject: Civil Appeal – Suit for Recovery based on Promissory Note Key Legal Propositions 1. The burden lies on the defendant to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, regarding the existence of consideration. 2. Pleadings form the foundation of a case, and parties are bound by them; they cannot later propound a different case. 3. Failure to disclose a transaction in Income Tax returns does not render it void, but may attract penal action; it does not extinguish the creditor’s right to recover the amount. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 11,82,720/- based on a promissory note. The trial court decreed the suit, and the defendant/appellant challenges this decree, alleging lack of consideration and jurisdictional issues. Held: A. On Issue: Validity of Promissory Note & Consideration Majority View: The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the promissory note was execu

13. M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram vs Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax on 15 December, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh15 Dec 2023

    Case Name: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Date of Judgment: 15 December, 2023 Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari & Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu Subject: Income Tax Law Key Legal Propositions 1. Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution. 2. No representation for the appellant leads to dismissal. 3. Closure of pending miscellaneous petitions following the main appeal's dismissal. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arises from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Visakhapatnam Bench, dated 17 October 2006, concerning the assessment year 2000-2001. The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Held: A. On Appeal Dismissal: Majority View: The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution due to the absence of representation for the appellant. No costs were ordered. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also directed to be closed. Dissenting View: None. B. On Costs: Majority View: No order as to costs was passed. Dissenting View: None. C. On Miscellaneous Petitions: Majority View: All pending miscellaneous petitions were directed to be closed. Dissenting View: None. Decision: The Income

14. M/s Somisetty Venkataramaiah vs The Asst. CIT [Inv] on 15 December, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh15 Dec 2023

    Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution is a valid procedural outcome. 2. Absence of representation for the appellant can lead to dismissal of the appeal. 3. Closure of pending miscellaneous petitions following the dismissal of the main appeal. Judgment Summary Background: This Income Tax Tribunal Appeal (ITTA) No. 218 of 2008 arises from an order dated 25.10.2004 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ‘A’, concerning Assessment Year 1985-86. The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Held: A. On Appeal Dismissal: Majority View: The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution due to the absence of representation from the appellant. Dissenting View: None. B. On Miscellaneous Petitions: Majority View: Any pending miscellaneous petitions related to the appeal were also directed to be closed. Dissenting View: None. C. On Costs: Majority View: No order was passed regarding costs. Dissenting View: None. Decision: The Income Tax Tribunal Appeal No. 218 of 2008 was dismissed for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous petit

15. M/s. Somisetty Venkataramaiah vs The Asst. CIT on 15 December, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh15 Dec 2023

    Case Name: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Date of Judgment: 15 December, 2023 Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari & Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu Subject: Income Tax Law Key Legal Propositions 1. Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution. 2. Closure of related miscellaneous petitions. 3. No order as to costs. Judgment Summary Background: This Income Tax Tribunal Appeal (ITTA) No. 219 of 2008 arises from an order dated 25.10.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ‘A’, in ITA.No. 827/HYD/2002 concerning the Assessment Year 1986-87. The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Held: A. On Appeal Dismissal: Majority View: The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution due to the absence of representation for the appellant despite being listed in the weekly cause list. Dissenting View: None. B. On Miscellaneous Petitions: Majority View: Any pending miscellaneous petitions related to the appeal were also directed to be closed. Dissenting View: None. C. On Costs: Majority View: No order was passed regarding costs. Dissenting View: None. Decision: The Income Tax Tribunal Appe

16. M/s. Emeskay Financial Services (T) vs DCIT on 07 December, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh7 Dec 2023

    Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. 2. 3. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal pertains to Income Tax matters, originating from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and concerning assessment years 1996-97 to 1998-99. The appellant, M/s. Emeskay Financial Services (T), preferred the appeal under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act against various orders passed by tax authorities. Held: A. On Appeal Dismissal: Majority View: The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution due to the absence of representation for the appellant. No costs were ordered. Pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed. Dissenting View: None. B. On Costs: Majority View: No order as to costs was passed. Dissenting View: None. C. On Miscellaneous Petitions: Majority View: Any pending miscellaneous petitions were directed to be closed. Dissenting View: None. Decision: The Income Tax Tribunal Appeal No. 192 of 2007 was dismissed for want of prosecution. --- Additional Required Fields Case Title: M/s. Emeskay Financial Services (T) vs DCIT on 07 December, 2023 Keywords: income tax, appeal, dismissal, prosecution, ITAT, assessment, tax authoritie

17. Rajesh Kumar Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. on 28 May, 2024

    High Court of Delhi28 May 2024

    Case Name: Rajesh Kumar Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. on 28 May, 2024 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 28 May, 2024 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad Subject: Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure, Personal Liberty, Lookout Circulars, Bank Frauds, Right to Travel Key Legal Propositions 1. The right to travel abroad is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed arbitrarily or illegally. 2. Issuance of Lookout Circulars (LOCs) by banks solely based on loan defaults, without any allegation of fraud or criminal activity, is impermissible and constitutes an abuse of process. 3. While LOCs can be issued in exceptional circumstances detrimental to India’s economic interests, such issuance requires a reasonable belief and cannot be a routine measure for debt recovery. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioner challenged a Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against him at the request of Union Bank of India, due to his role as a guarantor for a company (Sainov Spirits Private Limited) that had defaulted on its loans. The Bank had also initiated recovery proceedings under various laws including the SARFAESI Act and IBC. No criminal proceedi

18. PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors. on 01 December, 2023

    High Court of Delhi1 Dec 2023

    Case Name: PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors. on 01 December, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 01 December, 2023 Bench: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan & Justice Mini Pushkarna Subject: Income Tax - Assessment Proceedings - Faceeless Assessment - Role of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) Key Legal Propositions 1. Where an assessee files objections against a draft assessment order before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) within the prescribed time limit, the Assessing Officer should await the DRP’s directions before passing a final assessment order. 2. Failure to intimate the Assessing Officer regarding objections filed before the DRP, while a procedural lapse, does not preclude the requirement of awaiting DRP directions before finalizing the assessment. 3. Setting aside the final assessment order and allowing the Department to pass a fresh order after receiving directions from the DRP does not cause prejudice to the revenue. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 21st November, 2023, passed under Sections 143(3) and 144C(4) of the Inco

19. M/s Everest Enterprises vs Union of India on 31st August, 2023

    High Court of Delhi

    Case Name: M/s Everest Enterprises vs Union of India on 31st August, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 31st August, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad Subject: Contract Law, Administrative Law, Writ Petition, Manpower Supply, Termination of Contract, Blacklisting, Natural Justice Key Legal Propositions 1. Courts should refrain from substituting their wisdom for administrative authorities unless there is malafide, perversity, or illegality in the administrative order. 2. In contractual matters, judicial review has limitations and focuses on preventing arbitrariness, irrationality, and ensuring lawful decision-making, not on the soundness of the decision itself. 3. Principles of natural justice are not absolute and are applied considering the specific facts of the case; opportunity to cross-examine is not mandatory if facts are admitted or the party doesn't request it. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioner, M/s Everest Enterprises, challenged an order terminating its contract for supplying manpower to the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, forfeiting its performance security, and debarring it from future bids. The term

20. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Ors. on 29 May, 2023

    High Court of Delhi29 May 2023

    Case Name: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Ors. on 29 May, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 29th May, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble The Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad Subject: Constitutional Law, Public Interest Litigation, Economic Policy, Currency Regulation Key Legal Propositions 1. Courts should not ordinarily interfere with policy decisions of the Government unless such decisions are manifestly arbitrary or violate fundamental rights. 2. Judicial review of economic policies is limited to legality, not wisdom or soundness, and courts should avoid acting as appellate authorities on policy matters. 3. The Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments in economic policies, and courts should defer to legislative judgment in such matters unless the exercise of power is palpably arbitrary. Judgment Summary Background: The writ petition challenged the RBI and SBI notifications permitting the exchange of ₹2000 denomination banknotes without requiring identification proof, alleging it violated Article 14 of the Constitution and encouraged illegal activities like money laundering. The Petitioner argued that the lack of identificatio

Search all 4,050 judgments →