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

Ab Sciex Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle Int Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the second issue which was remanded by the

ITA 1969/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 514/Del/2021, (A.Y. 2017-18) Ab Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. Acit Block 33, 46 Marsiling Circle International Taxation Industrial Estate, 1(1)(1) Singapore. 739256 New Delhi Pan: Aanca1192P Appellant Respondent

…s of DTAA (Double tax Avoidance Agreement) and international guidance set out in this regard. Ground 6: The Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP grossly erred in law in ignoring the jurisprudence of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs. Morgan Stanley [2007] 7 SCC 1 holding that once the AE is remunerated on arm's length basis, there should be no further attribution. Ground 7: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in attributing excessive profits to the alleged PE on an ad-hoc and arbitrary basis, by not considering commercial and economic factors governing the business of the…

Ab Sciex Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle Int Taxation 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the second issue which was remanded by the

ITA 1968/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 514/Del/2021, (A.Y. 2017-18) Ab Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. Acit Block 33, 46 Marsiling Circle International Taxation Industrial Estate, 1(1)(1) Singapore. 739256 New Delhi Pan: Aanca1192P Appellant Respondent

…s of DTAA (Double tax Avoidance Agreement) and international guidance set out in this regard. Ground 6: The Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP grossly erred in law in ignoring the jurisprudence of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs. Morgan Stanley [2007] 7 SCC 1 holding that once the AE is remunerated on arm's length basis, there should be no further attribution. Ground 7: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in attributing excessive profits to the alleged PE on an ad-hoc and arbitrary basis, by not considering commercial and economic factors governing the business of the…

Ab Sciex Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the second issue which was remanded by the

ITA 514/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 514/Del/2021, (A.Y. 2017-18) Ab Sciex Pte Ltd. Vs. Acit Block 33, 46 Marsiling Circle International Taxation Industrial Estate, 1(1)(1) Singapore. 739256 New Delhi Pan: Aanca1192P Appellant Respondent

…s of DTAA (Double tax Avoidance Agreement) and international guidance set out in this regard. Ground 6: The Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP grossly erred in law in ignoring the jurisprudence of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs. Morgan Stanley [2007] 7 SCC 1 holding that once the AE is remunerated on arm's length basis, there should be no further attribution. Ground 7: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in attributing excessive profits to the alleged PE on an ad-hoc and arbitrary basis, by not considering commercial and economic factors governing the business of the…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central vs. Ms. Harshita Maheshwari

ITA/94/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

…of Technip SA (Supra). The next limb of arguments of the learned Senior Counsel is by referring to what has been titled as "appellant's key". It is submitted that 25 (2015) 4 SCC 609 26 (2010) 7 SCC 1 27 2001 SCC Online Bom. 969 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 109 of 300 though the learned Single Bench has held that Probate Court has no jurisdiction to issue any directions against third parties it has rendered/issued directions which is a fundamental flaw. The appellant…

Sri. Reddy Veeranna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1146/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1145/Bang/2022, 1112/Bang/2022, ITA No.1113/Bang/2022 & 1146/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively Shri Reddy Veeranna #9/1, 2nd Floor, Classic Court Richmond Road DCIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 025 Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru PAN NO : AASPV4626M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.11…

Sri. Reddy Veeranna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1145/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1145/Bang/2022, 1112/Bang/2022, ITA No.1113/Bang/2022 & 1146/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively Shri Reddy Veeranna #9/1, 2nd Floor, Classic Court Richmond Road DCIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 025 Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru PAN NO : AASPV4626M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.11…

Sri. Reddy Veeranna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1113/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1145/Bang/2022, 1112/Bang/2022, ITA No.1113/Bang/2022 & 1146/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively Shri Reddy Veeranna #9/1, 2nd Floor, Classic Court Richmond Road DCIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 025 Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru PAN NO : AASPV4626M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.11…

Sri. Reddy Veeranna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1112/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1145/Bang/2022, 1112/Bang/2022, ITA No.1113/Bang/2022 & 1146/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively Shri Reddy Veeranna #9/1, 2nd Floor, Classic Court Richmond Road DCIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 025 Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru PAN NO : AASPV4626M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.11…

Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1111/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

…ITA No.1111/Bang/2022 Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1145/Bang/2022, 1112/Bang/2022, ITA No.1113/Bang/2022 & 1146/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively Shri Reddy Veeranna #9/1, 2nd Floor, Classic Court Richmond Road DCIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 025 Central Circle-1(3) Bengaluru PAN NO : AASPV4626M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.11…

The Supreme Industrial Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7598/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7598/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Supreme Industries Ltd. Acit Ltu, Circle, बिधम/ 612, Raheja Chambers, Free Mumbai Vs. Press Journal Marg, Room No. X, 29Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai- World Trade Centre-1, 400021. Cuffee Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1344F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar (Cit- Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar (CIT- DR)
Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 197Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7598/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Supreme Industries Ltd. ACIT LTU, Circle, बिधम/ 612, Raheja Chambers, Free Mumbai Vs. Press Journal Marg, Room No. X, 29th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai- World Trade Centre-1, 400021. Cuffee Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACT1344F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh Shah Revenue by: Shri Manoj Kumar (CIT- DR) सुनवाई की त…

Naga Lakshmi Buchepalli, Chimakurthy vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 323/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

…) 1 SCC (Cri) 865] lays down the correct law in this regard has now been conclusively settled by this Court by a judgment dated 14-7-2020 in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 1 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 587] wherein the Court has held that : (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar [Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 1 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 587] , SCC pp. 56 & 62, paras 61 & 73). “61. We may reiterate, therefore, that the…

Naga Lakshmi Buchepalli, Chimakurthy vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 322/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

…) 1 SCC (Cri) 865] lays down the correct law in this regard has now been conclusively settled by this Court by a judgment dated 14-7-2020 in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 1 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 587] wherein the Court has held that : (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar [Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 1 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 587] , SCC pp. 56 & 62, paras 61 & 73). “61. We may reiterate, therefore, that the…

Ramesh Chandra Majithia, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 302/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

…) 1 SCC (Cri) 865] lays down the correct law in this regard has now been conclusively settled by this Court by a judgment dated 14-7-2020 in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 1 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 587] wherein the Court has held that : (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar [Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 1 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 587] , SCC pp. 56 & 62, paras 61 & 73). “61. We may reiterate, therefore, that the…

Siva Prasad Reddy Buchepalli, Chimakurthy vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 301/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

…) 1 SCC (Cri) 865] lays down the correct law in this regard has now been conclusively settled by this Court by a judgment dated 14-7-2020 in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 1 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 587] wherein the Court has held that : (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar [Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 1 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 587] , SCC pp. 56 & 62, paras 61 & 73). “61. We may reiterate, therefore, that the…

Siva Prasad Reddy Buchepalli, Chimakurthy vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 300/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

…) 1 SCC (Cri) 865] lays down the correct law in this regard has now been conclusively settled by this Court by a judgment dated 14-7-2020 in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 1 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 587] wherein the Court has held that : (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar [Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 1 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 587] , SCC pp. 56 & 62, paras 61 & 73). “61. We may reiterate, therefore, that the…

M/S Fingrowth Cooperative Bank Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/9/2020HC Rajasthan24 Aug 2023

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

…of Technip SA (Supra). The next limb of arguments of the learned Senior Counsel is by referring to what has been titled as "appellant's key". It is submitted that 25 (2015) 4 SCC 609 26 (2010) 7 SCC 1 27 2001 SCC Online Bom. 969 (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 109 of 300 though the learned Single Bench has held that Probate Court has no jurisdiction to issue any directions against third parties it has rendered/issued directions which is a fundamental flaw. The appellant…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 180/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…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 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…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 179/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…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 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…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 178/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…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 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…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 177/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…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 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…