What is Meghamala v. G. Narsimla Reddy authority for?

Affidavits are considered self-serving documents and do not possess substantive evidentiary value when compared to other forms of incriminating material. The genuineness of transactions and the substance of evidence obtained during surveys or searches take precedence over affidavits.

How many judgments cite Meghamala v. G. Narsimla Reddy?

12 judgments on BharatTax cite Meghamala v. G. Narsimla Reddy (8 SCC 383), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Meghamala v. G. Narsimla Reddy come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 69C, Section 148, Section 133(6), Section 133A, Section 142(1), Section 143(3).

Meghamala v. G. Narsimla Reddy (8 SCC 383)

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Kanpur vs. Rajan Rajesh Kumar

The Appeal stands dismissed without being admitted

ITA/12/2024HC Uttarakhand17 Dec 2025

Bench: This Court Being Aggrieved By The Judgment & Order Dated 08.02.2024, Whereby The Appellate Tribunal Was Pleased To Allow The Appeal Of The Respondent. 3.

For Appellant: Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel

Section 133ASection 151

…e administration of justice.” 13. The hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is its stability and finality. Judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and weather [ See, Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy, (2010) 8 SCC 383 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 368 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 878] . A 2025:UHC:11294-DB 28 disturbing trend has emerged in this Court of repeated applications, styled as miscellaneous applications, being filed after a final judgment has been pronounced. Such a practice has no legal foundation and must be firmly discouraged. It reduces litigation to…

Amrit Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1661/MUM/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya M. RaiFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Bhatt

Section 148Section 69C

…10. Hence, this ground of appeal relating to cross-examination is dismissed. 11. Ground No. 3 of the appellant relates to Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the sworn affidavit of Directors of Ratnakala group. In the case of Meghamala Vs. G. Narsimla Reddy (2010) 8 SCC 383, the relevance of affidavit was held as follows :- “The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that affidavits are self-serving document which does not having substantive evidence”. 12. Moreover, the affidavit filed by appellant does not talk about the incriminating material available during the search. In the impugned case, the Revenue got all evidences of u…

Amrit Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1660/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya M. RaiFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Bhatt

Section 148Section 69C

…10. Hence, this ground of appeal relating to cross-examination is dismissed. 11. Ground No. 3 of the appellant relates to Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the sworn affidavit of Directors of Ratnakala group. In the case of Meghamala Vs. G. Narsimla Reddy (2010) 8 SCC 383, the relevance of affidavit was held as follows :- “The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that affidavits are self-serving document which does not having substantive evidence”. 12. Moreover, the affidavit filed by appellant does not talk about the incriminating material available during the search. In the impugned case, the Revenue got all evidences of u…

Amrit Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1659/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya M. RaiFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Bhatt

Section 148Section 69C

…10. Hence, this ground of appeal relating to cross-examination is dismissed. 11. Ground No. 3 of the appellant relates to Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the sworn affidavit of Directors of Ratnakala group. In the case of Meghamala Vs. G. Narsimla Reddy (2010) 8 SCC 383, the relevance of affidavit was held as follows :- “The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that affidavits are self-serving document which does not having substantive evidence”. 12. Moreover, the affidavit filed by appellant does not talk about the incriminating material available during the search. In the impugned case, the Revenue got all evidences of u…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…rrect admission made during any legal proceedings then AO shall be at complete liberty to a relief as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court down in the case of A. V. Papayya Sastry and others v. Government of A.P. and others AIR (2007) SC1546 and (2010) 8 SCC 383 where it was held that - fraud nullifies all and persons who played fraud ought not to be allowed to bear the fruit or benefit thereof. Therefore if the impugned order is found to be obtained by misrepresentation of facts, then it will not be entitled to any relief, interim or final. In view of these facts it is held that there is no mistake appare…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…rrect admission made during any legal proceedings then AO shall be at complete liberty to a relief as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court down in the case of A. V. Papayya Sastry and others v. Government of A.P. and others AIR (2007) SC1546 and (2010) 8 SCC 383 where it was held that - fraud nullifies all and persons who played fraud ought not to be allowed to bear the fruit or benefit thereof. Therefore if the impugned order is found to be obtained by misrepresentation of facts, then it will not be entitled to any relief, interim or final. In view of these facts it is held that there is no mistake appare…