Common Cause v. Union of India

77 Taxmann.com 245Supreme Court of India2017#305 most cited

What is Common Cause v. Union of India authority for?

Additions under the Income Tax Act cannot be made solely based on entries in loose sheets, dumb documents, or mere sworn statements without independent, reliable, and cogent corroborating evidence. Uncorroborated loose papers are not admissible evidence on their own, even if the original context was criminal investigation.

267

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Common Cause v. Union of India · loose papers · dumb documents · corroborating evidence · independent evidence · sworn statements · Section 69A · Section 132 · search assessment · admissibility of evidence · evidence income tax · retracted statement

Also reported as

222 ITR 260

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 69ASection 153CSection 69Section 292C

Issues it is cited on

hundi transactiontax recovery officerjewellery found during searchretraction of statementdumb documentspeak credit theoryretracted statementsection 158bdincome tax settlement commissionsection 132(4a)section 292cloose papers

Judgments citing Common Cause v. Union of India

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 127/BIL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE : SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICAL MEMBER ITA Nos.126 to 132/BLPR/2011 (Assessment Years :2001-2002 to 2007-2008) ACIT-1(1), Central vs Shri Javed Ali Pradhan, Revenue Building, Civil Pradhan House, Civil Lines, Lines,Chhattisgarh Raipur, Chhattisgarh PAN No. : AGBPA 1758 J (Appellant) .. tsednepseR Revenue by : Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR Assessee by : None Date of Hearing : 08/01/2018 Date of Pronouncement 10/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, AM: These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the c…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 126/BIL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE : SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICAL MEMBER ITA Nos.126 to 132/BLPR/2011 (Assessment Years :2001-2002 to 2007-2008) ACIT-1(1), Central vs Shri Javed Ali Pradhan, Revenue Building, Civil Pradhan House, Civil Lines, Lines,Chhattisgarh Raipur, Chhattisgarh PAN No. : AGBPA 1758 J (Appellant) .. tsednepseR Revenue by : Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR Assessee by : None Date of Hearing : 08/01/2018 Date of Pronouncement 10/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, AM: These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the c…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3092/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Counsel a/wFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar
Section 132Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.3092/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2006–07) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–8(2), Mumbai v/s Ms. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte 34, 7th Floor, Guldev Sagar CHS ……………. Respondent Waterfield Road, Bandra (West) Mumbai 400 050 PAN – ADEPT7813P ITA no.3093/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2007–08) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–8(2), Mumbai v/s Ms. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte 34, 7th Floor, Guldev Sagar CHS ……………. Respondent Water…

Khaleel Ahmed K R vs. State of Karnataka

WP/27674/2012HC Karnataka21 Jun 2016

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,K.NATARAJAN

…ituted under the Act cannot entertain a public interest litigation at the instance of a total stranger. 234. The Apex Court in the case of B.SRINIVASA REDDY Vs. KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 (I) has held as under: - 405 - 51. It is settled law by a catena of decisions that Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Government in the choice of the person to be appointed so long as the person chosen possesses prescribed qualification and is otherwise eligible for appointment. This Court in R.K. Jain vs. Unio…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-XI vs. Indian National Congress/All India Congress Committee

ITA/145/2001HC Delhi23 Mar 2016

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

Section 139Section 13A

…onsolidated accounts of its central office and state units, even thereafter. The decision in 'Common Cause' 12. In 1995 the Supreme Court was seized of a PIL filed by Common Cause, a civil society organisation. In Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) 222 ITR 260 (SC), the Supreme Court by a judgement dated 4th April 1996, dealt with the question of political parties not filing returns of income for several years thereby violating the mandatory requirement of Section 139(4B) of the Act. The summary of the main conclusions of the Supreme Court was as under: (i) Political parties were not above the law…

Indian National Cong. (I) Aicc vs. C.I.T.- XI

ITA/180/2001HC Delhi23 Mar 2016

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

Section 139Section 13A

…onsolidated accounts of its central office and state units, even thereafter. The decision in 'Common Cause' 12. In 1995 the Supreme Court was seized of a PIL filed by Common Cause, a civil society organisation. In Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) 222 ITR 260 (SC), the Supreme Court by a judgement dated 4th April 1996, dealt with the question of political parties not filing returns of income for several years thereby violating the mandatory requirement of Section 139(4B) of the Act. The summary of the main conclusions of the Supreme Court was as under: (i) Political parties were not above the law…

Indian National Cong. (I) Aicc vs. C.I.T.- XI

ITA - 180 / 2001HC Delhi23 Mar 2016
Section 139Section 13A

…onsolidated accounts of its central office and state units, even thereafter. The decision in 'Common Cause' 12. In 1995 the Supreme Court was seized of a PIL filed by Common Cause, a civil society organisation. In Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) 222 ITR 260 (SC), the Supreme Court by a judgement dated 4th April 1996, dealt with the question of political parties not filing returns of income for several years thereby violating the mandatory requirement of Section 139(4B) of the Act. The summary of the main conclusions of the Supreme Court was as under: (i) Political parties were not above the law…