HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Cargill India Private Limited v. Central Board of Direct Taxes
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 18119 of 2025
No separate citation stated in the source ·
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2 judicial members · J.B. Pardiwala · K. Vinod Chandran
01 · Facts of the case
Cargill’s pending special leave matter was referred to the Supreme Court Special Lok Adalat. The parties were unable to reach a settlement.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The record refers back to the 23 June 2026 notice order but undertakes no statutory adjudication. It prints section 71A with Rule 9C, whereas the original June order prints section 72A. This discrepancy is preserved.
Source: paragraphs 3 / PDF pages 1, 2
03 · Judicial decision
The matter was directed to be posted before the appropriate bench for adjudication.
Source: paragraphs 4 / PDF pages 1, 2
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In whose favour: No settlement and no merits winner
The matter was directed to be posted before the appropriate bench for adjudication.
No final tax-merits ruling in this order
Source: paragraphs 2,4 / PDF pages 1, 2
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
This is an unsuccessful-settlement record, not a decision granting or denying tax relief. It does not resolve Rule 9C or the underlying statutory interpretation. Link it to the June notice order and verify later proceedings.
Source: paragraphs 1-4 / PDF pages 1, 2
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete identified source PDF: 2 pages. Original bytes preserved.
- Historical procedural status as of the order date only. No assertion that an interim direction remains operative today; inspect later docket orders before relying on it.
- Submissions recited in this order are not final findings.
- No citation printed in the source order
- Not stated in the reviewed order
- Source prints 71A; earlier order expressly prints 72A. No corrected substantive section assigned to this procedural record.
- The source lists two judges and three lawyer panel members. The bench field counts judicial members only.
Statutory scope
Current statutory equivalence and applicability under the Income-tax Act, 2025 have not been verified.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-04. Subsequent appeals, review proceedings, stays, reversals and later judicial treatment have not been comprehensively checked. This note is not a citator status certificate.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- official record of proceedings — PDF 2 pages
SHA-256: 59e246d37e83c6fc2d36b30c365321af553696f8e1b600c4d1e81958afc84dd4
Related reviewed notes
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.