Ashok Debbarma Alias Achak Debbarma v. State of Tripura

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

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

…Page 44 of 177 by Monglu shall have to be dismissed, that filed by Hafijuddin and Motilal shall have to be allowed giving to the said two appellants also the benefit of doubt.” 7.4. The Supreme Court in (2014) 4 SCC 747 Ashok Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura clearly laid down that the conviction cannot be based only on the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as the same is not substantiative evidence and it can only be taken as a piece of evidence to lend credence to the case of the prosecution. It was held: “23. The learned counsel appearing for the accused h…

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

The appeal is allowed to the above extent

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

…e positive identification, by PW-23, of the appellant in court, the earlier identification in the Police Station merely acted as corroboration thereof. Reliance was placed, in this regard, on Ashok Debbarma Alias Achak Debbarma v. State of Tripura, (2014) 4 SCC 747 and Satwantin Bai v. Sunil Kumar, MANU/SC/0416/2015. CRL.A. 462/2016 Page 8 of 57 Holding, on the basis of the above material, that the appellant stood irrevocably linked to the offence, alleged to have been committed by him, the…

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

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

…Page 44 of 177 by Monglu shall have to be dismissed, that filed by Hafijuddin and Motilal shall have to be allowed giving to the said two appellants also the benefit of doubt.” 7.4. The Supreme Court in (2014) 4 SCC 747 Ashok Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura clearly laid down that the conviction cannot be based only on the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as the same is not substantiative evidence and it can only be taken as a piece of evidence to lend credence to the case of the prosecution. It was held: “23. The learned counsel appearing for the accused h…

Commissioner of Income Tax -XI vs. Amit Malhotra

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

…Page 44 of 177 by Monglu shall have to be dismissed, that filed by Hafijuddin and Motilal shall have to be allowed giving to the said two appellants also the benefit of doubt.” 7.4. The Supreme Court in (2014) 4 SCC 747 Ashok Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura clearly laid down that the conviction cannot be based only on the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as the same is not substantiative evidence and it can only be taken as a piece of evidence to lend credence to the case of the prosecution. It was held: “23. The learned counsel appearing for the accused h…

Pr. CIT Central-1 vs. Amrapali Grand

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…Page 44 of 177 by Monglu shall have to be dismissed, that filed by Hafijuddin and Motilal shall have to be allowed giving to the said two appellants also the benefit of doubt.” 7.4. The Supreme Court in (2014) 4 SCC 747 Ashok Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura clearly laid down that the conviction cannot be based only on the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as the same is not substantiative evidence and it can only be taken as a piece of evidence to lend credence to the case of the prosecution. It was held: “23. The learned counsel appearing for the accused h…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…Page 44 of 177 by Monglu shall have to be dismissed, that filed by Hafijuddin and Motilal shall have to be allowed giving to the said two appellants also the benefit of doubt.” 7.4. The Supreme Court in (2014) 4 SCC 747 Ashok Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura clearly laid down that the conviction cannot be based only on the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as the same is not substantiative evidence and it can only be taken as a piece of evidence to lend credence to the case of the prosecution. It was held: “23. The learned counsel appearing for the accused h…

Commissioner Ofincome Tax(Central)-II vs. Spn Milk Products Industries Pvt. Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…Page 44 of 177 by Monglu shall have to be dismissed, that filed by Hafijuddin and Motilal shall have to be allowed giving to the said two appellants also the benefit of doubt.” 7.4. The Supreme Court in (2014) 4 SCC 747 Ashok Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura clearly laid down that the conviction cannot be based only on the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as the same is not substantiative evidence and it can only be taken as a piece of evidence to lend credence to the case of the prosecution. It was held: “23. The learned counsel appearing for the accused h…

Commissioner of Income Tax-(Central)-I vs. Siddharath Sareen

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…Page 44 of 177 by Monglu shall have to be dismissed, that filed by Hafijuddin and Motilal shall have to be allowed giving to the said two appellants also the benefit of doubt.” 7.4. The Supreme Court in (2014) 4 SCC 747 Ashok Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura clearly laid down that the conviction cannot be based only on the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as the same is not substantiative evidence and it can only be taken as a piece of evidence to lend credence to the case of the prosecution. It was held: “23. The learned counsel appearing for the accused h…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Jubliant Oil & Gas Pvt.Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…Page 44 of 177 by Monglu shall have to be dismissed, that filed by Hafijuddin and Motilal shall have to be allowed giving to the said two appellants also the benefit of doubt.” 7.4. The Supreme Court in (2014) 4 SCC 747 Ashok Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura clearly laid down that the conviction cannot be based only on the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as the same is not substantiative evidence and it can only be taken as a piece of evidence to lend credence to the case of the prosecution. It was held: “23. The learned counsel appearing for the accused h…