Sansa Law Desk

Background and Facts An assessee cannot build a deduction on a departmental memorandum that the statute does not support. The Supreme Court has restated that CBDT circulars reflect the Executive's understanding of the law, bind the officers who administer it, and do not bind a court at all. The judgment in Orient Crafts Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi [Civil Appeal Nos. 143-144 of 2013, heard with Civil Appeal Nos. 137-138, 139-140 and 141-142 of 2013] carrie

A tribunal e-filing portal that refuses papers on the last day of limitation used to be an almost unanswerable problem, because statutes such as Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cap the period that can be condoned. The Supreme Court's judgment of September 10, 2026 in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Ms. Mamta Binani and Others, 2026 INSC 1003, supplies the answer: the date of the first bona fide attempt to e-file is the date of presentation

Background and Facts Where a tribunal's own e-filing system refuses the papers, the date of presentation of an appeal is the date of the first bona fide attempt to file, not the later date on which the portal finally accepted it. The Supreme Court so held in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Ms. Mamta Binani and Others, reported as 2026 INSC 1003 and decided on September 10, 2026. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner sought to appeal against an order of the Natio

Background and Facts The Supreme Court has stayed a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that declared Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 unconstitutional, but has done so on terms that stop the Revenue from pressing ahead in the meantime. The order was passed on September 18, 2026 in Union of India and Others v. Bharat Industrial Enterprises Private Limited [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 33196 of 2026]. Section 147A was inserted into the Income-tax Act, 1961 by

An unlawful vehicle repossession is rarely defeated by disputing the default. It is defeated on the manner of the seizure. The Supreme Court's judgment of September 16, 2026 in Hari Dutta Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2026 INSC 998, is the clearest recent illustration: the borrower was admittedly in default, and still recovered the sale proceeds, Rs 10 lakh in compensation and costs, because the lender had not given the notice its own agreement required and had

Background and Facts The Supreme Court has held that once the Income Tax Settlement Commission passes a final order, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen a Settlement Commission order through ordinary reassessment, and that the Revenue's only route lies within the settlement chapter itself. The judgment in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another v. M/s Omaxe Limited [Civil Appeal No. 9190 of 2013] carries the neutral citation 2026 INSC 1000. The assess

Background and Facts The Supreme Court has set aside a vehicle repossession carried out at one in the morning without the contractual notice, holding that the seizure violated the borrower's rights under Articles 14 and 21, and has directed the Reserve Bank of India to secure genuine compliance with its recovery guidelines by banks and non-banking financial companies. The judgment in Hari Dutta Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others carries the neutral citation 2026 INSC

Where a patent application was filed in one name and the rights have since moved to another, somebody has to substitute the applicant on the Patent Office record. That is a statutory function under Section 20 of the Patents Act, 1970, not an administrative formality, and it is conditioned in ways that catch out assignees who assume a signed assignment is enough. The Bombay High Court's judgment of September 8, 2026 in Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil v. Indian Institute of Te

Background and Facts A guarantor who has moved abroad, taken foreign citizenship and holds no assets in India is still within the reach of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Chennai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal has now said so twice in 2026, most recently in M. Gagan Bothra v. Senthil Kumar [CP(IB)/96(CHE)/2025], by an order dated September 7, 2026 admitting a personal guarantor insolvency petition against a permanent resident of New Jersey in the United St

Background and Facts A patent assignment executed by an institution in favour of its own researcher, expressed to cover the United States and all countries foreign thereto, also carries the Indian rights. So held the Bombay High Court in Dr. Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil v. Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay and Others [Commercial Miscellaneous Petition (L) No. 12000 of 2026], neutral citation 2026:BHC-OS:19905, in a judgment that also quashed a refusal order and sent a th

The obligation to settle accounts between partners on dissolution is the step most often deferred and the most expensive to defer. The Supreme Court's judgment of September 9, 2026 in V. Sumitra Reddy and Another v. K. Ranganadha Reddy and Others, where a twenty five per cent share in land held by a firm dissolved in 1983 was held to attach to the value realised on sale rather than the value in 1983, is a reminder of what an unsettled account is worth after four decades. This

Background and Facts Where a firm dissolves and its land is sold decades later, does the outgoing partner take his share of the price realised or his share of the value the land had on the day of dissolution? The Supreme Court has held it is the former, and has added that a reconstituted firm has no right to use the dissolved firm's assets in the meantime. The judgment in V. Sumitra Reddy and Another v. K. Ranganadha Reddy and Others [Civil Appeal No. 8167 of 2017] is reporte

Background and Facts A contract that carves out excepted matters from arbitration raises an obvious question: who decides whether a given claim has been carved out. The Supreme Court has answered that the arbitral tribunal does, and that a writ court cannot settle the point in advance. The judgment in M/s GVV Constructions Private Limited v. Union of India and Others [Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7338 of 2026] is reported as 2026 INSC 976. So

Whether a lease arrangement produces financial debt decides who may file under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, who sits on the committee of creditors and where a claim ranks. Section 5(8)(d) answers the question by importing an accounting test into the statute, which means the characterisation is settled by the substance of the agreements rather than by what they are called. The NCLT Allahabad order of August 20, 2026 in Achhru Ram Jindal and Others v.

Background and Facts The National Company Law Tribunal at Allahabad has admitted a corporate debtor into insolvency on the footing that a pair of linked agreements over cloud storage capacity amounted to a financial lease, and so gave rise to financial debt. The order in Achhru Ram Jindal and Others v. M/s Zebyte Rental Planet Private Limited was passed on August 20, 2026 and has been reported this week. Twenty six individuals entered into two agreements. Under an Asset Sale