Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.38 seconds)

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla & Ors on 2 March, 1998

In support of this proposition, the learned AR drew strength from the celebrated decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla & Ors. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 247-256 of 1998], wherein it was held that loose sheets or diaries, not being books of account regularly kept in the course of business, are not admissible evidence under section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court observed that entries made by one person in such documents, unless corroborated by independent evidence, cannot fasten liability on another. This, the AR submitted, was directly applicable to the present case, where the Assessing Officer sought to tax the assessee on the strength of the personal notings of PDG, without establishing authorship, authenticity, or relevance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 551 - M K Mukherjee - Full Document

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central ... vs Umesh I Ishrani on 30 April, 2019

28. The learned counsel further cited a line of decisions from the jurisdictional and coordinate benches to reinforce the "dumb document" principle. Reference was made to Principal CIT v. Umesh Ishrani [(2019) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom)], where the Hon'ble Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that rough, unauthenticated notings in seized diaries, unaccompanied by corroborative evidence, could not justify addition under sections 68 or 69A.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - S V Kotwal - Full Document
1