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.

How many judgments cite Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal?

183 judgments on BharatTax cite Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (7 SCC 1), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 65B, Section 69C, Section 115BBE, Section 132(4), Section 143(3), Section 142(1).

Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (7 SCC 1)

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 176/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

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 175/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

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 174/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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 173/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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 172/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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…

Utstarcom Inc., Gurgaon vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 187/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2004-05 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Acit, India Branch Office, Gurgaon Circle, 805, Signature Towers-B, Gurgaon South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Adit, (Formerly Operating Through A Circle-3(1), Branch Office In India), International Taxation, 10Th Floor, Signature Towers- New Delhi B, South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ddit, Vs. Ut Starcom Inc., Circle-3(1) & 3(2) India Branch Office, International Taxation, 805, Signature Towers-B, New Delhi South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115ASection 9(1)(vi)

…ccepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), no further profit can be attributed to the PE. For such proposition, he relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of DIT (International Taxation), Mumbai vs. M/s Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., (2007) 7 SCC 1. Thus, he submitted, the addition made on account of attribution of profit to the PE should be deleted. 15. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 15 | P a g e ITA Nos.998 & 1858/Del/2009 & 187/Del/2014 & 16. We have considered rival submissions and…

Ut Starcom Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 998/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2004-05 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Acit, India Branch Office, Gurgaon Circle, 805, Signature Towers-B, Gurgaon South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Adit, (Formerly Operating Through A Circle-3(1), Branch Office In India), International Taxation, 10Th Floor, Signature Towers- New Delhi B, South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ddit, Vs. Ut Starcom Inc., Circle-3(1) & 3(2) India Branch Office, International Taxation, 805, Signature Towers-B, New Delhi South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115ASection 9(1)(vi)

…ccepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), no further profit can be attributed to the PE. For such proposition, he relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of DIT (International Taxation), Mumbai vs. M/s Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., (2007) 7 SCC 1. Thus, he submitted, the addition made on account of attribution of profit to the PE should be deleted. 15. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 15 | P a g e ITA Nos.998 & 1858/Del/2009 & 187/Del/2014 & 16. We have considered rival submissions and…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ut Starcom Inc., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1858/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2004-05 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Acit, India Branch Office, Gurgaon Circle, 805, Signature Towers-B, Gurgaon South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ut Starcom Inc., Vs. Adit, (Formerly Operating Through A Circle-3(1), Branch Office In India), International Taxation, 10Th Floor, Signature Towers- New Delhi B, South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ddit, Vs. Ut Starcom Inc., Circle-3(1) & 3(2) India Branch Office, International Taxation, 805, Signature Towers-B, New Delhi South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aaacu5017A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115ASection 9(1)(vi)

…ccepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), no further profit can be attributed to the PE. For such proposition, he relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of DIT (International Taxation), Mumbai vs. M/s Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., (2007) 7 SCC 1. Thus, he submitted, the addition made on account of attribution of profit to the PE should be deleted. 15. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 15 | P a g e ITA Nos.998 & 1858/Del/2009 & 187/Del/2014 & 16. We have considered rival submissions and…

Taj Tv Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 821/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Taj Tv Limited Dcit (International C/O. Suresh Surana & Taxation)-4(1)(2) Associates Llp Air India Building, 8Th Floor, Bakhtawar, Vs. Nariman Point, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 021 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct6542J Reference Of Orders / Directions In Appeal Sr Orders & Directions Passed By Date No 1 Draft Assessment Order U/S The Deputy 27/12/2019 144C Of The Act Commissioner Of Income Tax , International Taxation, Circle 4 (1) (2), Mumbai 2 Direction U/S 144C (5) Of The Cit (Drp-2) , 22/03/2021 Act Mumbai - 2 3 Assessment Order U/S 143 93) The Deputy 12/04/2021 R.W.S 144C (13) Of The Act Commissioner Of Income Tax , International Taxation, Circle 4 (1) (2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv

Section 143Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM Taj TV Limited DCIT (International C/o. Suresh Surana & Taxation)-4(1)(2) Associates LLP Air India Building, 8th Floor, Bakhtawar, Vs. Nariman Point, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 021 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6542J Reference of orders / Directions in Appeal Sr Orders and Directions Passed By Date No 1 Draft Assessment order u/s The Deputy 27/12/2019 144C of the Act Commissioner of Income tax , international taxation, Circle 4 (1) (2), Mumbai 2 Direction u/s 144C (5)…