Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Section 101 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Daya Sapra on 5 May, 2009
In the cases of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009)
13 SCC 729 and Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in 183
(2011) DLT 418, it has been held that a civil case is to be decided on balance
of probabilities
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 269 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Shri Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. vs Mrs. Jagjit Chawla & Others on 6 September, 2011
In the cases of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009)
13 SCC 729 and Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in 183
(2011) DLT 418, it has been held that a civil case is to be decided on balance
of probabilities
Sanjay Mishra vs Ms.Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki on 24 February, 2009
17. I have gone through the judgment titled as Sanjay Mishra Vs.
Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki & Anr, 2009(3) Civil Court Cases 563
(Bombay) and ratio of the case squarely applies in the facts of this case. The
relevant para No. 13 of the judgment reads as under:
13" In the present case, there is a categorical admission
that the amount allegedly advanced by the applicant
was entirely a cash amount and that the amount was
"unaccounted". He admitted not only that the same was
not disclosed in the Income Tax Return at the relevant
time but till recording of evidence in the year 2006 it
was not disclosed in the Income Tax Return. By no
stretch of imagination it can be stated that liability to
repay unaccounted cash amount is a legally enforceable
liability within the meaning of explanation to section
138 of the said Act. The alleged debt cannot be said to
be a legally recoverable debt."