How many judgments cite Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal?

10 judgments on BharatTax cite Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal (5 SCC 353), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 36(1)(iii), Section 37, Section 57.

Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal

5 SCC 353Reported decision2006#10653 most cited

What is Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal authority for?

A registered sale deed carries a presumption of validity, and the onus is on the party challenging it to provide evidence to rebut this presumption.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Prem Singh v. Birbal · 2006 SCC (5) 353 · registered sale deed · presumption of validity · onus of proof · rebuttal of presumption · evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37 Section 57 Section 114B Section 54

Judgments citing Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal

Chandra Swaminathan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2034/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. J. RadhakrishnanFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 54Section 69A

…s not a mere formality but a solemn act that imparts high degree of sanctity to the document. Consequently, it was held by Hon’ble Mrs. Chandra Swaminathan :: 13 :: Supreme Court in plethora of cases to name one, Prem Singh and Ors vs Birbal and Ors (2006) 5 SCC 353, that a Court must not lightly or casually declare a registered instrument as ‘Sham’. Further, the entries in bank statement of the assessee also corroborates both the sale and purchase transactions executed by the assessee. The registered purchase Deed dated 05.01.2017 between the assessee and the PoA-holder of the vendor, has not been questioned…

ITO, Ward-2(4), New Delhi vs. Antheia Constructions P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4963/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4963/DEL/2017 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) ITO, Ward 2 (4), vs. Antheia Construction P. Ltd., 60, 2nd Floor, Vasnat Marg, New Delhi. Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 110 057. (PAN : AAJCA4466E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Ms. Ayushi Gupta, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date of Order : 13.09.2024 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against th…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Antheia Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2373/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Charminar Bottling Company Private Ltd., Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1344/HYD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07 Charminar Bottling Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Company Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Secunderabad. Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcc2858E (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Kanika Jain Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 08/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/05/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2006-07 Is Directed Against The Cit(A) - Iii, Hyderabad’S Order, Dated 12/07/2013 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: Smt. Kanika JainFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar

Section 143(3)Section 69

…qqIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Charminar Bottling Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Company Pvt. Ltd., Income-tax, Secunderabad. Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AABCC2858E (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. Kanika Jain Revenue by: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date of hearing: 08/04/2021 Date of pronouncement: 20/05/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2006-07 is directed against the CIT(A) - iii, Hyderabad’s order, dated 12/0…

The Director of Income Tax vs. M/S. Anz Operations and Technology Pvt. Ltd

ITA/357/2011HC Karnataka15 Jul 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.F.A.No.1124/2011 C/W R.F.A.No.357/2011

Section 96Section 96(1)

…ant No.2 relied on the following judgments: (i) Gangamma and others Vs. G.Nagarathnamma and others (2009) 15 SCC 756 (Para Nos. 9 and 10); (ii) Surendra Kuamr vs. Nathulal and antoehr (2001) 5 SCC 46 (Para 13 and 14); (iii) Prem Singh Vs.Birbal (2006) 5 SCC 353 (para 27): 43 54. In the present case, the following points are amply clear. There existed a joint family prior to 1952 among B.S.Siddallingaiah and his other three brothers that joint family disrupted under Ex.P2 and B.S.Siddalingaiah got B schedule property in the suit schedule which consist of 24 items. Of course the…

Sanjay Dalmia vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-3, New Delhi

ITA/341/2018HC Delhi21 Mar 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 14(1)Section 14(1)(a)Section 25

…triable issues but the respondent has to prove with documentary evidence to show that the petitioners are having accommodation which is both alternative and suitable. 51. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Prativa Devi vs. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353, has observed as under:- “2…..The landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. The High Court is rather solicitous about the age…

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. Chl Limited

ITA/638/2017HC Delhi21 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…CS(OS) 638/2017 Page 1 of 16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 1st May, 2018 + CS(OS) 638/2017 SHARMISTHA SANYAL & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Lohit Ganguly, Adv. Versus SUJIT SEN & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Shatadev Chakraborty, Ms. Sonia Dube and Ms. Surbhi Anand, Advs. for D-1. Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv. for D-2&3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW IA No.2848/2018 (of D-1 u/O VII R-11 CPC) 1. The plaintiffs have filed the…

Commissioner of Income Tax - (Exemption) vs. Indian Evangelical Team

The appeals are disposed off in the above terms

ITA/39/2017HC Delhi01 Mar 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…deed has consequences in law and there is a presumption as to the validity of the same as held in Prem Singh & Ors. V. RFAs 875/2016, 38/2017 & 39/2017 Page 22 of 24 Birbal & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 353 (hereinafter, “Prem Singh”) and recently by this Court in Mahesh Chander Ahuja v. Tilak Raj Ahuja 2018 (3) AD Delhi 130 (hereinafter, “Mahesh Chander Ahuja”). The Supreme Court in Prem Singh held as under: “27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be va…

Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax 8 vs. M/S Super Malls Pvt. Ltd

ITA/449/2016HC Delhi22 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 14(1)(e)Section 25B(8)

…r is required to place himself in the armchair of the landlord and to then decide, whether the requirement pleaded is genuine or merely a guise to evict an old tenant paying meager rent. It has been repeatedly held in Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353, Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222, Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co. (2000) 1 SCC 679 and Siddalingamma Vs. Mamtha Shenoy (2001) 8 SCC 561, to name a few, that (a) the landlord is the best judge of his requirement; (b) he has complete freedom in the matter; (c) it is no concern of the Courts to dictate…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income vs. M/S. K.R.S. Enterprises Pvt

ITA/253/2015HC Karnataka21 Sept 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad

Section 115

…contends that the question of limitation should be determined along with the other Issues as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shyam Madan Mohan Ruia and others v. M/s Holdings Limited6 because 5 (2020) 5 SCC 353 6 (2020) 5 SCC 252 20 question of limitation is always a mixed question of fact and law. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surjit Kaur Gill and another versus Adarsh Kaur Gill and another7 has declared that the question of limitation would always be a mixed question of fact and law and hence, the rejection of plaint on the gr…