Bruno v. State of U.P

7 SCC 178Reported decision2015#2578 most cited

What is Bruno v. State of U.P authority for?

The judgment in Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178, is per incuriam and does not lay down the law correctly concerning Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. · 2015 7 SCC 178 · Section 65B Evidence Act · per incuriam · Evidence Act · admissibility of electronic evidence · electronic record · certificate · judicial pronouncements

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 69

Judgments citing Bruno v. State of U.P

Sanjay Garudapally, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 12/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

…) 10 SCC 473 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2015) 1 SCC (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 judgment in Shafhi Mohammad [Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 2 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC 807 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 346 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 351 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 860 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 865] and the judgment dated 3-4- 2018 reported as Shafhi Moha…

Garudapally Shruthi Gupta, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 11/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

…) 10 SCC 473 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2015) 1 SCC (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 judgment in Shafhi Mohammad [Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 2 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC 807 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 346 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 351 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 860 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 865] and the judgment dated 3-4- 2018 reported as Shafhi Moha…

Garudapally Shruthi Gupta, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 10/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 69

…) 10 SCC 473 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2015) 1 SCC (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 judgment in Shafhi Mohammad [Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 2 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC 807 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 346 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 351 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 860 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 865] and the judgment dated 3-4- 2018 reported as Shafhi Moha…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA No.2290 /Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) M/s. Gian Sagar Educational & Charitable Trust, vs. DCIT, SCO 109 – 110, Sector 43B, Central Circle 4, Chandigarh. New Delhi. (PAN : AAATG5827B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ravipratap Mall, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 23.02.2022 Date of Order : 23.02.2022 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM : The aforesaid appeal has been filed by…

Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central II) vs. P.D Associates (P). (Ltd)

The appeals are allowed

ITA/630/2015HC Delhi24 Aug 2015

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

Section 120BSection 374Section 7

…SCC OnLine SC 1124; State of Punjab V Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14 SCC 153; Mukut Bihari and Another V State of Rajasthan, (2012) 11 SCC 642; Sevi and Another V State of Tamil Nadu, 1981 (Supp) SCC 43; Tomaso Bruno and Another V State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178; CBI V K. Narayanrao, (2012) 9 SCC 512; Meena V State of Maharashtra, (2000) 5 SCC 21. The learned Senior Counsel argued that the impugned judgment and the impugned order passed by the trial court be set aside and the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar be acquitted. Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 17:36:55 Signature Not Verified…