Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal

7 SCC 1Supreme Court of India2020#517 most cited

What is Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal authority for?

Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records as evidence, including WhatsApp chats and statements recorded under Section 132(4), to ensure their source and authenticity. If a person cannot obtain the certificate despite efforts, they can apply to the court for its production.

183

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Panditrao Khotkar · Arjun Panditrao Khotkar · Section 65B Evidence Act · Section 65B(4) mandatory · electronic evidence admissibility · Section 132(4) statements · WhatsApp chats evidence · authenticity electronic records · search and seizure evidence · certificate for electronic evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 65BSection 69CSection 115BBESection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 132

Issues it is cited on

section 65(b)section 65asection 62section 65b(4)section 59section 65bsection 65section 45section 132(4a)panchnamasection 153bsection 127

Judgments citing Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. RAMESH BABU SEGU, HYDERABAD

ITA 1277/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1277/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18) Acit, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) Vs. Ramesh Babu Segu, Hyderabad. Pan: Amrps2069N (Respondent) C.O. No.03/Hyd/2025 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1277/Hyd/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2017-18) Ramesh Babu Segu, Hyderabad. Pan: Amrps2069N (Appellant) Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri K A Sai Prasad, Ca राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad ("Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 11/10/2024 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Also Raised The Cross Objection For The A.Y.2017-

For Appellant: Shri K A Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 65BSection 69C

…he Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and Others again for reference. 44. Now coming to the decision of the Hon Hole Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal And Ors reported in [2020] 7 SCC 1 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: "30. Coming back to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, sub-section (1) needs to be analyzed. The sub-section begins with a non-obstante clause, and then goes on to mention information contained in an electronic record produced by a computer, which is, by a deeming fiction, then made a "document"…

NARESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3144/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumararti Garg, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A – 19, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Akupg4398A) Naresh Arora, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A-061, 6Th Floor, Spaze Privy, Delhi. Sector 72, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aacpa3657P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Shri Vaibhav Srivastava, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 65BSection 69Section 69C

…the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 certificate and for which reliance has been placed by ld. Counsel for the assessee on following decisions :-‘ (i) Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473; (ii) Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1; (iii) Vetrivel Minerals v. ACIT (2021) 129 taman.com 126 (Mad.); (iv) Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur v. DCIT, CC-1 – ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench, in ITA Nos.172-180/Viz/2023 (order dated 18.08.2023); (v) ACIT v. Anan Jaikumar Jain (2023) 147 taxman.com 125 (Mumbai-Trib.); (vi) M/s. Asma Estates & Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITAT, Hyderabad in IT…

ARIT GARG,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3143/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumararti Garg, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A – 19, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Akupg4398A) Naresh Arora, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A-061, 6Th Floor, Spaze Privy, Delhi. Sector 72, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aacpa3657P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Shri Vaibhav Srivastava, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 65BSection 69Section 69C

…the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 certificate and for which reliance has been placed by ld. Counsel for the assessee on following decisions :-‘ (i) Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473; (ii) Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1; (iii) Vetrivel Minerals v. ACIT (2021) 129 taman.com 126 (Mad.); (iv) Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur v. DCIT, CC-1 – ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench, in ITA Nos.172-180/Viz/2023 (order dated 18.08.2023); (v) ACIT v. Anan Jaikumar Jain (2023) 147 taxman.com 125 (Mumbai-Trib.); (vi) M/s. Asma Estates & Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITAT, Hyderabad in IT…

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-000152-000152 - 2026Supreme Court09 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 47

…ther company, the successor-in-interest becomes entitled to the liabilities and assets of the transferor company subject to the terms and conditions of contract of transfer or merger, as it were. Later, in Singer India Ltd. v. Chander Mohan Chadha [(2004) 7 SCC 1] this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 10, para 8) “8. … there can be no doubt that when two companies amalgamate and merge into one, the transferor company loses its identity as it ceases to have its business. However, their respective rights and liabilities are determined under the scheme of amalgamation, but the corporate identity of the transf…

LSL TOOLS (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CC-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5644/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…ined in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity." 24. Further, ld. AR submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arjun PandiraoKhotkar reported in 2020] 7 SCC 1 has held that "section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is mandatory. According to the Hon'ble Court, when documents from ITA No.5689 and 5073/MUM/2024 Prashant Prakash Nilawar, AY 20021-22 electronic records are produced by authorities and are sought to be used in evidence, in order to ensure the source and authenticity of the said documents, i…

LSL TOOLS (P) LTD,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5643/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…ined in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity." 24. Further, ld. AR submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arjun PandiraoKhotkar reported in 2020] 7 SCC 1 has held that "section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is mandatory. According to the Hon'ble Court, when documents from ITA No.5689 and 5073/MUM/2024 Prashant Prakash Nilawar, AY 20021-22 electronic records are produced by authorities and are sought to be used in evidence, in order to ensure the source and authenticity of the said documents, i…

AKASH KAPOOR,HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 766/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69ASection 80T

…rant any kind of action against the present petitioner. 4.7. While relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar PV Vs. B.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, learned counsel contended that WhatsApp conversion and the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of 1961 would not conform to the parameters laid down in the said precedent laws. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India, (2017) 394 ITR 220 SC. 4.8.…

DCIT CC-8(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRU DHIREN SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4294/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income V/S. Niru Dhiren Shah Tax, Central Circle – 8(2) बनाम 3Rd Floor, Flat No. 35, Jolly Room No. 658, 6Th Floor, Maker Apartment, No. 3 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 119, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Churchgate, Mumbai –400020, Mumbai – 400 005, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aanps7632R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…sically recovered, and its contents align with official market rates, providing corroboration. The assessee’s failure to rebut this with evidence strengthens the AO’s case. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrau Gorantyal [2020] 7 SCC 1 clarified that electronic evidence (including chats) is admissible without original device if certified under section 65B, emphasizing reliability in civil proceedings like tax assessments. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Rohidas Jadhav (2018) held that whatsApp messages have evidentiary value if corroborated, r…

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST AISA LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-009766-009766 - 2025Supreme Court24 Jul 2025

Bench: This Court, Before The High Court & Before The Income

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…n by an enterprise vis-à-vis its customer. If looked at from that point of view, then, no activity could be construed as preparatory or of an “auxiliary” character. On this aspect of the matter, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. [(2007) 7 SCC 1] amongst other issues was called upon to decide as to whether back office operations carried on by Morgan Stanley Company for one of its Morgan Stanley Advantages Services Pvt. Ltd. would qualify as having a permanent establishment in India. The Supreme Court, while holding that back office operations fall within the exclusionary clause Article…

FOUNDATION ONE INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3152/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…8(4) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the said impounded material is inadmissible in the eyes of law. In this context, we rely on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1 and the order of Chennai Bench of ITAT in the case of Mr.A.Johnkumar v DCIT in ITA No.3028/CHNY/2019 (Order dated 13.05.2022). It is a fact that the AGM of the assessee company has signed the said loose sheets in excel form. It can however be seen that this hardly meets the requirements set out in section 65B[4] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We f…

FOUNDATION ONE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3151/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…8(4) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the said impounded material is inadmissible in the eyes of law. In this context, we rely on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1 and the order of Chennai Bench of ITAT in the case of Mr.A.Johnkumar v DCIT in ITA No.3028/CHNY/2019 (Order dated 13.05.2022). It is a fact that the AGM of the assessee company has signed the said loose sheets in excel form. It can however be seen that this hardly meets the requirements set out in section 65B[4] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We f…

FOUNDATION ONE INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3150/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…8(4) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the said impounded material is inadmissible in the eyes of law. In this context, we rely on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1 and the order of Chennai Bench of ITAT in the case of Mr.A.Johnkumar v DCIT in ITA No.3028/CHNY/2019 (Order dated 13.05.2022). It is a fact that the AGM of the assessee company has signed the said loose sheets in excel form. It can however be seen that this hardly meets the requirements set out in section 65B[4] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We f…

FOUNDATION ONE INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3149/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…8(4) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the said impounded material is inadmissible in the eyes of law. In this context, we rely on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1 and the order of Chennai Bench of ITAT in the case of Mr.A.Johnkumar v DCIT in ITA No.3028/CHNY/2019 (Order dated 13.05.2022). It is a fact that the AGM of the assessee company has signed the said loose sheets in excel form. It can however be seen that this hardly meets the requirements set out in section 65B[4] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We f…

FOUNDATION ONE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3148/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…8(4) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the said impounded material is inadmissible in the eyes of law. In this context, we rely on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1 and the order of Chennai Bench of ITAT in the case of Mr.A.Johnkumar v DCIT in ITA No.3028/CHNY/2019 (Order dated 13.05.2022). It is a fact that the AGM of the assessee company has signed the said loose sheets in excel form. It can however be seen that this hardly meets the requirements set out in section 65B[4] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We f…

VASIREDDY VIDYA SAGAR,GUNTUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , GUNTUR

ITA 525/VIZ/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.Τ.Α.Nos.524, 525 & 526/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Vasireddy Vidya Sagar D.No. 5-37-44/2, Kalangi Complex 4/7, Brodipet, Guntur - 522002 [Pan: Agzps2420F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) V. Dcit – Central Circle – 1 Income Tax Office Lakshmipuram Main Road Guntur - 522006 Andhra Pradesh (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar 19.02.2025 07.03.2025 आदेश /Order Per Shri S Balakrishnan: 1. These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam – 3 [Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below:-

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153C

…the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and Others again for reference. 44. Now coming to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushan Rao GorantyalAnd Ors reported in [2020] 7 SCC 1 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: “30. Coming back to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, sub-section (1) needs to be analysed. The sub-section begins with a non-obstante clause, and then goes on to mention information contained in an electronic record produced by a computer, which is, by a deeming fiction, then made a “document”…

VEMULURI NAGA BHUSHANAM,HYDERABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 500/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.496, 497, 498, 499 & 500/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Vemuluri Naga Bhushanam V. Dcit – Central Circle – 1(1) D.No.8-2-293/82/A/1149 Income Tax Office Road No. 36 Lakshmipuram Main Road Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033 Guntur – 522006 Telangana Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Abipv2941A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153C

…he Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and Others again for reference. 44. Now coming to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushan Rao Gorantyal And Ors reported in [2020] 7 SCC 1 (SC) the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “30. Coming back to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, sub-section (1) needs to be analysed. The sub-section begins with a non-obstante clause, and Page. No 11 I.T.A.No.496, 497, 498, 499 & 500/VIZ/2024 Vemuluri Naga Bhushanam then goes on to mention information contained in an electronic recor…

VEMULURI NAGA BHUSHANAM,HYDERABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 499/VIZ/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.496, 497, 498, 499 & 500/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Vemuluri Naga Bhushanam V. Dcit – Central Circle – 1(1) D.No.8-2-293/82/A/1149 Income Tax Office Road No. 36 Lakshmipuram Main Road Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033 Guntur – 522006 Telangana Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Abipv2941A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153C

…he Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and Others again for reference. 44. Now coming to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushan Rao Gorantyal And Ors reported in [2020] 7 SCC 1 (SC) the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “30. Coming back to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, sub-section (1) needs to be analysed. The sub-section begins with a non-obstante clause, and Page. No 11 I.T.A.No.496, 497, 498, 499 & 500/VIZ/2024 Vemuluri Naga Bhushanam then goes on to mention information contained in an electronic recor…

VEMULURI NAGA BHUSHANAM,HYDERABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 498/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.496, 497, 498, 499 & 500/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Vemuluri Naga Bhushanam V. Dcit – Central Circle – 1(1) D.No.8-2-293/82/A/1149 Income Tax Office Road No. 36 Lakshmipuram Main Road Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033 Guntur – 522006 Telangana Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Abipv2941A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153C

…he Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and Others again for reference. 44. Now coming to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushan Rao Gorantyal And Ors reported in [2020] 7 SCC 1 (SC) the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “30. Coming back to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, sub-section (1) needs to be analysed. The sub-section begins with a non-obstante clause, and Page. No 11 I.T.A.No.496, 497, 498, 499 & 500/VIZ/2024 Vemuluri Naga Bhushanam then goes on to mention information contained in an electronic recor…

VEMULURI NAGA BHUSHANAM,HYDERABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 497/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.496, 497, 498, 499 & 500/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Vemuluri Naga Bhushanam V. Dcit – Central Circle – 1(1) D.No.8-2-293/82/A/1149 Income Tax Office Road No. 36 Lakshmipuram Main Road Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033 Guntur – 522006 Telangana Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Abipv2941A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153C

…he Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and Others again for reference. 44. Now coming to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushan Rao Gorantyal And Ors reported in [2020] 7 SCC 1 (SC) the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “30. Coming back to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, sub-section (1) needs to be analysed. The sub-section begins with a non-obstante clause, and Page. No 11 I.T.A.No.496, 497, 498, 499 & 500/VIZ/2024 Vemuluri Naga Bhushanam then goes on to mention information contained in an electronic recor…

VEMULURI NAGA BHUSHANAM,HYDERABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , GUNTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.496, 497, 498, 499 & 500/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Vemuluri Naga Bhushanam V. Dcit – Central Circle – 1(1) D.No.8-2-293/82/A/1149 Income Tax Office Road No. 36 Lakshmipuram Main Road Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033 Guntur – 522006 Telangana Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Abipv2941A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153C

…he Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and Others again for reference. 44. Now coming to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushan Rao Gorantyal And Ors reported in [2020] 7 SCC 1 (SC) the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “30. Coming back to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, sub-section (1) needs to be analysed. The sub-section begins with a non-obstante clause, and Page. No 11 I.T.A.No.496, 497, 498, 499 & 500/VIZ/2024 Vemuluri Naga Bhushanam then goes on to mention information contained in an electronic recor…

Showing 1–20 of 183 · Page 1 of 10

...
Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (7 SCC 1) — Cited in 183 Judgments | BharatTax