Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal

7 SCC 1Supreme Court of India2020#518 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 367,368 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

Commissioner of Income Tax (C) - II vs. Mira Exim Ltd

ITA - 348 / 2013HC Delhi03 Oct 2013
Section 260ASection 32(1)Section 394

…es a report to the court that the affairs of the company had not been conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of its members or to public interest." 11. Similar view was taken earlier in the case of Singer Limited versus Chander Mohan Chadha, (2004) 7 SCC 1 wherein the ITA No. 346/2013 Page 8 ofl 1 2013:DHC:7857-DB following extract from Halsbury's Laws of England (4^'^ Edn., Vol. 7)paragraph 1539 was quoted "Amalgamation is a blending of two or more existing undertakings into one undertaking, the shareholders of each blending company becoming substantially the shareholders in the company which is to…

Commissioner of Income Tax (C) - II vs. Mira Exim Ltd

ITA - 347 / 2013HC Delhi03 Oct 2013
Section 260ASection 32(1)Section 394

…es a report to the court that the affairs of the company had not been conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of its members or to public interest." 11. Similar view was taken earlier in the case of Singer Limited versus Chander Mohan Chadha, (2004) 7 SCC 1 wherein the ITA No. 346/2013 Page 8 ofl 1 2013:DHC:7857-DB following extract from Halsbury's Laws of England (4^'^ Edn., Vol. 7)paragraph 1539 was quoted "Amalgamation is a blending of two or more existing undertakings into one undertaking, the shareholders of each blending company becoming substantially the shareholders in the company which is to…

Director of Income Tax Intnl T vs. Ericsson Radio Systems A.B

The appeal is allowed in the

ITA/511/2007HC Delhi23 Dec 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…nd Company Limited, Calcutta; (2) Shaw Wallace Distilleries Limited; (3) United Spirits Limited (2008 [1] Mah.LJ 899) held that: “The effect of a Scheme of Amalgamation, as held by the Supreme Court in Singer India Ltd. vs. Chander Mohan Chadha, (2004) 7 SCC 1 is that as a result of amalgamation of two Companies into one, "the Transferor Company loses its entity as it ceases to have its business". The respective rights or liabilities are determined under the Scheme of Amalgamation but the corporate entity of the Transferor Company ceases to exist with effect from the date the amalgamation is made eff…