KTMS Mohamed & Ors. v. UOI

3 SCC 178Reported decision1992#5027 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 132 Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 69C Section 271AAB Section 131 Section 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statement section 271aab bogus long term capital gain retracted statement dumb documents section 10(38)short term capital gain loose papers long term capital gains documents seized unexplained expenditure reopening of assessment

Judgments citing KTMS Mohamed & Ors. v. UOI

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Agrilcultural Market Committee, Anakapalli

ITTA/342/2011HC Telangana18 Oct 2011

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,N.RAVI SHANKAR

Central Govt.Emp. Consumer Coo vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is dismissed and pending applications

ITA/407/2007HC Delhi19 Sept 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

Section 35Section 40Section 63Section 8(1)

…ould be corroborated in material particulars. In addition, the court must feel that the reasons given for the retraction in the case of a confession are untrue.”" 35. In context of FERA cases, the Apex Court in K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 178, has categorically noted that merely because a statement is retracted, it cannot be recorded as involuntary or unlawfully obtained. It is for the maker of that statement to establish that the statement had been obtained using illicit means. The relevant portion of the said Judgment reads as under : "34. We think it is not necessary to recapit…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Mahaan Foods Ltd

ITA/1552/2006HC Delhi31 Mar 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA

Section 108Section 40

…W.P. (C) No. 1552/2006 Page 2 noticee and the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be relied upon in proceedings under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. She relies upon KTMS Mohd. And Another Versus Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 178 and Noor Aga versus State of Punjab and Another, 2008 (9) Scale 681. She states that the Adjudicating Authority did not take into consideration the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 40 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. It is stated that the petitioner does not file income tax returns as he does not have taxable income and…