Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
The RBI has issued the Third Amendment Directions, 2026, modifying prudential capital adequacy norms for Payments Banks, particularly concerning legal opinions for clearing members.
The Reserve Bank of India has issued the Fifth Amendment Directions, 2026, revising prudential norms on capital adequacy for All India Financial Institutions (AIFIs), particularly aligning legal opinion requirements for clearing members.
The RBI has imposed a ₹5 lakh penalty on The Monghyr-Jamui Central Co-operative Bank Limited for non-compliance with KYC directions. The penalty was imposed under Section 47A(1)(c) read with Sections 46(4)(i) and 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.
In TCRC v Ganga Rudraiah, the Madras High Court examined ownership of copyright in behind-the-scenes (BTS) photographs from the film 'Aval Appadithan', focusing on Section 17(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Court highlighted the importance of written agreements and found that mere acquiescence does not transfer rights.
The Delhi High Court held that a formal declaration under Rule 124 is not mandatory to invoke Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for claiming well-known status. The ruling allows courts to independently assess well-known marks based on evidence, even without prior recognition by the Registry.
ITAT Pune allowed deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned by a cooperative society from a cooperative bank, distinguishing it from commercial deposits.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(E) cannot impose additional conditions beyond statutory requirements for granting registration under Sections 12AB and approval under 80G.
ITAT Delhi quashed a penalty under Section 271AAB due to defective show-cause notices that failed to specify the exact statutory clause violated, violating principles of natural justice.
ITAT Chennai allowed capital gains deduction under Section 54 for construction on a plot owned by the assessee's wife, provided construction was completed within three years and funds were traceable.
ITAT Lucknow held that issuing a Section 143(1) intimation after a scrutiny notice defeats the purpose of Section 143(1) and renders the adjustment invalid. The assessment based on it was set aside.
ITAT Delhi quashed reassessment proceedings where undisclosed investment in property was alleged solely based on ledger entries, holding that lack of buyer/seller status and absence of notice under Section 143(2) vitiated the proceedings.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that ₹6.80 crore spent on shutting down a paging business was capital in nature and not allowable as revenue deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessment year was 2007.