What is Anvar P.V v. P.K. Basheer authority for?

Electronic records are inadmissible in evidence unless accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

How many judgments cite Anvar P.V v. P.K. Basheer?

169 judgments on BharatTax cite Anvar P.V v. P.K. Basheer (10 SCC 473), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Anvar P.V v. P.K. Basheer come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 65B, Section 132, Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 132(4), Section 69C.

Anvar P.V v. P.K. Basheer (10 SCC 473)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(3)(1), Bangalore vs. Shri B S Yediyurappa, Bangalore

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed, as not pressed

ITA 14/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Asst.Commissioner Of Shri B.S. Yediyurappa, Income Tax, No.381, Davalgiri, Ii Main Circle - 1(3)(1) Vs. Vi Cross, Off 80 Ft Road, Bengaluru Rmv 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru Pan – Aaapy4922F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 148

…tion 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and on complying the conditions enumerated u/s 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. The above said principle has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (Anver P.V. v. P.K.Basheer and Ors. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473. The diary noting, the statement of VP (Finance), RNSIL has not pointed out any payment to the assessee. The statement recorded on 16.02.2012 (date of search) was retracted by the VP (Finance) RNSIL on 07.03.2012 itself. The CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings had directed the A.O. to grant an opportunity of cross examination of VP (…

M/S Gian Sagar Educational & Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2290/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Ravipratap Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 80G

…65B of the Evidence Act, was recently reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, 2020 (7) SCC 1. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court therein has held as under: 73.1. Anvar P.V. [Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473: (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27: (2015) 1 SCC 25 (Cri) 24: (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 108], as clarified by us hereinabove, is the law declared by this Court on Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. The judgment in Tomaso Bruno [Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178: (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 54], being per incuriam, does not lay down the law correctly. Also, the…

M/S. Simtools Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7(3) ( Earstwhile DCIT- Cent. Cir-42), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed as above

ITA 1574/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha

Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 32(1)Section 79

…ivision Bench reference order dated 26.07.2019, dealing with the interpretation of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act”) by two judgments of this Court. In the reference order, after quoting from Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors (2014) 10 SCC 473 (a three Judge Bench decision of this Court), it was found that a Division Bench judgment in SLP (Crl.) No. 9431 of 2011 reported as Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801 may need reconsideration by a Bench of a larger strength.” 26. Thereafter, Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 13 to 24 dealt with the provision of law in…

Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 386/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…ed by the Concerned Officer/Employee and, therefore, it was held that the Affidavit is sufficient compliance of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He has also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar PV s., PK Basheer [2014] 10 SCC 473 (SC) in which it was held that “An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CDs, VCDs, Chip etc., - the same shall be accompanied by the Certificate in terms of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act obtained at the time of taking…

Shri Basant Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 385/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…ed by the Concerned Officer/Employee and, therefore, it was held that the Affidavit is sufficient compliance of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He has also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar PV s., PK Basheer [2014] 10 SCC 473 (SC) in which it was held that “An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CDs, VCDs, Chip etc., - the same shall be accompanied by the Certificate in terms of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act obtained at the time of taking…

Pankaj Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 384/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…ed by the Concerned Officer/Employee and, therefore, it was held that the Affidavit is sufficient compliance of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He has also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar PV s., PK Basheer [2014] 10 SCC 473 (SC) in which it was held that “An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CDs, VCDs, Chip etc., - the same shall be accompanied by the Certificate in terms of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act obtained at the time of taking…

Abha Bansal, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Central, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 383/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…ed by the Concerned Officer/Employee and, therefore, it was held that the Affidavit is sufficient compliance of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He has also relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar PV s., PK Basheer [2014] 10 SCC 473 (SC) in which it was held that “An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CDs, VCDs, Chip etc., - the same shall be accompanied by the Certificate in terms of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act obtained at the time of taking…

Shri. D. V. Sadanada Gowda, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 895/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.U.S.Yogesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh B.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “SMC-B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, Judicial Member ITA No.895/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 Sri.D.V.Sadananda Gowda The Asst.Commissioner of 15-22-1390/4, Kamala, 2nd Cross Income-tax, Circle 1(3)(1) v. Lower Bendoor Bengaluru. Mangalore – 575 002. PAN : AGMPG0756F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.U.S.Yogesh Kumar, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Ganesh B.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of Date of Hearing : 18.03.2021 Pronouncement : 30.03.2021 O R D E R This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-C2 vs. Rajeev Bahl

ITA/40/2019HC Delhi12 Sept 2019

Bench: The Family Court By Way Of A Divorce Petition Bearing Hma No. 609/2012, The Relevant Details Of Which Are Referred To Hereinafter. 3. The Petitioner/Wife Is The Respondent In The Aforesaid Divorce Petition Which Was Filed On 26.09.2012 By The Respondent/Husband Seeking

Section 13(1)(ia)

…Ors.13 : in which a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held that electronic record produced for inspection of the court is documentary evidence under section 3 of the Evidence Act, to be proved in 11 (2010) 4 SCC 329 12 (2016) 9 SCC 426 13 (2014) 10 SCC 473 _______________________________________________________________________ C.M.(M) 40/2019 page 10 of 46 accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 65-B of the Evidence Act. (x) Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bapooji Pattin Souharda Sahakari Niyamit

RP/100275/2017HC Karnataka04 Jul 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Rajendra Badamikar

Section 138Section 200Section 313Section 397

…to P21 do not come to the aid of the complainant in any way in this regard. 18. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anvar P.V Vs. P.K.Basheer and Others reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 and also in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 4908 regarding admissibility of electronic records Exs.P6 to P21 and Ex.P23-CD. In normal course they are not admissible, but principles enunciated in the above cited decisions cannot be made applicable in view of the fact that D…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

ITTA/480/2017HC Telangana01 Aug 2017

For Respondent: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy

Section 120BSection 25Section 27Section 302

…ned Trial Court held that in the absence of the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, the call detail records were inadmissible in evidence. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 24 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 92 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:2282-DB ) 27 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 108: 2014 SCC OnLine SC 732 that the electronic record is inadmissible without the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. It was observed at page 486: “22. The evidence relating to electronic…

Commissioer of Income Tax(International Taxation )-1 vs. Aspect Software Inc

The appeal stands allowed

ITA/944/2016HC Delhi25 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

For Appellant: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. andFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC

Section 376Section 376(1)

…th the Crl.A.944/2016 Page 27 of 82 mandatory requirements of law as laid down in Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and Others (2014) 10 SCC 473, in the light of the Indian Evidence Act and Income Tax Act, 2000.] He had talked to prosecutrix about Gorakhpur after his return. The prosecutrix had taken his telephone number. The aforesaid witness has affirmed the fact that Anusha, wife of the appellant, had gone to her parents‟ house and was expected to bring food. He has also confirm…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I vs. Shri Suresh Nanda

ITA/847/2016HC Delhi28 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…t is para materia Section 65B of the Indian CRL.A. 134/2016 & conn. matters Page 18 of 177 Evidence Act and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in (2014) 10 SCC 473 Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors. a computer generated document would be admissible only when accompanied by a certificate otherwise the same would be inadmissible in law. 5.4. Learned counsel for the appellants Yesudanam, B.M. Ghosh, Shiv Sagar Naik, Hayat Singh and N.R. Suman relying upon the decision in (1967) 1 SCR 898 Chandradhar Goswam…

Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/269/2016HC Delhi27 Jul 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…t is para materia Section 65B of the Indian CRL.A. 134/2016 & conn. matters Page 18 of 177 Evidence Act and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in (2014) 10 SCC 473 Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors. a computer generated document would be admissible only when accompanied by a certificate otherwise the same would be inadmissible in law. 5.4. Learned counsel for the appellants Yesudanam, B.M. Ghosh, Shiv Sagar Naik, Hayat Singh and N.R. Suman relying upon the decision in (1967) 1 SCR 898 Chandradhar Goswam…

Commissioner of Income Tax -XI vs. Amit Malhotra

ITA/396/2016HC Delhi26 Jul 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…t is para materia Section 65B of the Indian CRL.A. 134/2016 & conn. matters Page 18 of 177 Evidence Act and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in (2014) 10 SCC 473 Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors. a computer generated document would be admissible only when accompanied by a certificate otherwise the same would be inadmissible in law. 5.4. Learned counsel for the appellants Yesudanam, B.M. Ghosh, Shiv Sagar Naik, Hayat Singh and N.R. Suman relying upon the decision in (1967) 1 SCR 898 Chandradhar Goswam…