19-21 39 Union of India v. Bal Mukund

12 SCC 161Reported decision2009#18817 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing 19-21 39 Union of India v. Bal Mukund

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3, Delhi vs. Alchemist Capital Ltd

ITA/251/2023HC Delhi03 May 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 212(6)Section 439Section 439(2)

…37 Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab & Anr, (2008) 16 SCC 417 at paras 58, 59 38 Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 at paras 19-21 39 Union of India vs. Bal Mukund, (2009) 12 SCC 161 at para 28 40 Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary (supra) at para 401 Digitally Signed By:NEERAJ Signing Date:03.05.2023 10:52:00 Signature Not Verified 2023:DHC:2994 BAIL APPLN. 251/2023 Page 42 of 53 27. Also, in the S…

Girish Raghunath Mehta vs. Inspector of Customs

The appeals are dismissed

Crl.A. No.-001020-001021 - 2009Supreme Court07 Sept 2016
Section 15Section 42Section 67Section 8

…atement was not voluntary. Its contents were not read over to him. A-2 was also in custody and his statement was also not voluntary. Statement of co-accused could not 1 (2000) 2 SCC 513 2 (2016) 6 SCALE 32 3 (2013) 2 SCC 212 4 (2013) 16 SCC 31 5 (2009) 12 SCC 161 6 (2009) 16 SCC 496 7 (2008) 16 SCC 417 Page 6 JUDGMENT 6 be taken as substantive evidence. The same could not be relied upon in view of the decision in Bal Mukund and Raju Premji (supra). 8. Learned counsel for the State supports the conviction and sentence of the appellant. He submitted that concurrent finding of the courts below…

Girish Raghunath Mehta vs. Inspector of Customs

The appeals are dismissed

Crl.A. No.-001020-001021 - 2009Supreme Court07 Sept 2016
Section 15Section 42Section 67Section 8

…atement was not voluntary. Its contents were not read over to him. A-2 was also in custody and his statement was also not voluntary. Statement of co-accused could not 1 (2000) 2 SCC 513 2 (2016) 6 SCALE 32 3 (2013) 2 SCC 212 4 (2013) 16 SCC 31 5 (2009) 12 SCC 161 6 (2009) 16 SCC 496 7 (2008) 16 SCC 417 Page 6 JUDGMENT 6 be taken as substantive evidence. The same could not be relied upon in view of the decision in Bal Mukund and Raju Premji (supra). 8. Learned counsel for the State supports the conviction and sentence of the appellant. He submitted that concurrent finding of the courts below…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2 vs. M/S Bose Corporation (India) Pvt. L to

The appeal is allowed to the above extent

ITA/462/2016HC Delhi23 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 21Section 23Section 28

…and the sustainability of a conviction, based solely on such a statement, which is not appropriately retracted, is in a state of flux. 16. In this context, it is also relevant to note the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.O.I. v. Bal Mukund, (2009) 12 SCC 161, which holds that there was a presumption, in the case of recording of the statement under Section 67 of the Act in the office of the Narcotics Control Bureau (hereafter referred to as ―NCB‖), that the statement was not voluntary. This principle, it may easily be surmised, would apply with even greater force where the statement is recorded by…

19-21 39 Union of India v. Bal Mukund (12 SCC 161) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax