State (NCT CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 157 of 400 of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

…g the use of the device. Hence, the contention of the appellant is devoid of any merit. 6.8 Admissibility of Electronic evidence has evolved over time through a number of landmark decisions. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (State vs Navjot Sandhu [2005] 11 SCC 600 was the first of its kind by the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision on the admissibility of electronic records in 2005, introducing secondary evidence of electronic records under Sections 63 and 65. There is no limit regardless of whether it meets the requirements of Section 65B. The Supreme Court ruled in Shafi Mohammed v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2…

PURUSHUTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

…g the use of the device. Hence, the contention of the appellant is devoid of any merit. 6.8 Admissibility of Electronic evidence has evolved over time through a number of landmark decisions. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (State vs Navjot Sandhu [2005] 11 SCC 600 was the first of its kind by the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision on the admissibility of electronic records in 2005, introducing secondary evidence of electronic records under Sections 63 and 65. There is no limit regardless of whether it meets the requirements of Section 65B. The Supreme Court ruled in Shafi Mohammed v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2…

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

…g the use of the device. Hence, the contention of the appellant is devoid of any merit. 6.8 Admissibility of Electronic evidence has evolved over time through a number of landmark decisions. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (State vs Navjot Sandhu [2005] 11 SCC 600 was the first of its kind by the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision on the admissibility of electronic records in 2005, introducing secondary evidence of electronic records under Sections 63 and 65. There is no limit regardless of whether it meets the requirements of Section 65B. The Supreme Court ruled in Shafi Mohammed v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2…

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

…g the use of the device. Hence, the contention of the appellant is devoid of any merit. 6.8 Admissibility of Electronic evidence has evolved over time through a number of landmark decisions. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (State vs Navjot Sandhu [2005] 11 SCC 600 was the first of its kind by the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision on the admissibility of electronic records in 2005, introducing secondary evidence of electronic records under Sections 63 and 65. There is no limit regardless of whether it meets the requirements of Section 65B. The Supreme Court ruled in Shafi Mohammed v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2…

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

…g the use of the device. Hence, the contention of the appellant is devoid of any merit. 6.8 Admissibility of Electronic evidence has evolved over time through a number of landmark decisions. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (State vs Navjot Sandhu [2005] 11 SCC 600 was the first of its kind by the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision on the admissibility of electronic records in 2005, introducing secondary evidence of electronic records under Sections 63 and 65. There is no limit regardless of whether it meets the requirements of Section 65B. The Supreme Court ruled in Shafi Mohammed v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2…

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

…g the use of the device. Hence, the contention of the appellant is devoid of any merit. 6.8 Admissibility of Electronic evidence has evolved over time through a number of landmark decisions. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (State vs Navjot Sandhu [2005] 11 SCC 600 was the first of its kind by the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision on the admissibility of electronic records in 2005, introducing secondary evidence of electronic records under Sections 63 and 65. There is no limit regardless of whether it meets the requirements of Section 65B. The Supreme Court ruled in Shafi Mohammed v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2…

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

…g the use of the device. Hence, the contention of the appellant is devoid of any merit. 6.8 Admissibility of Electronic evidence has evolved over time through a number of landmark decisions. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (State vs Navjot Sandhu [2005] 11 SCC 600 was the first of its kind by the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision on the admissibility of electronic records in 2005, introducing secondary evidence of electronic records under Sections 63 and 65. There is no limit regardless of whether it meets the requirements of Section 65B. The Supreme Court ruled in Shafi Mohammed v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-C2 vs. RAJEEV BAHL

Bench: The Family Court By Way Of A Divorce Petition Bearing Hma No. 609/2012, The Relevant Details Of Which Are Referred To Hereinafter. 3. The Petitioner/Wife Is The Respondent In The Aforesaid Divorce Petition Which Was Filed On 26.09.2012 By The Respondent/Husband Seeking

…han High Court and has therefore not been considered. 14. The Family Court has relied essentially upon the law as expatiated by the Supreme Court in Navjot Sandhu (supra), as is discussed later in this judgment. 20 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 7851 21 (2005) 11 SCC 600 _______________________________________________________________________ C.M.(M) 40/2019 page 15 of 46 Discussion and conclusions : 15. The impugned order requires to be tested on the anvil of well-worn principles of admi…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I vs. SHRI SURESH NANDA

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

…ld be admissible only when accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act and in the absence thereof it would be inadmissible. The three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. (supra) over-ruling its earlier decision in (2005) 11 SCC 600 State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu held: “14. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65-A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B. Section 65-B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provi…

DAIKIN AIRCONDITIONING INDIA PVT LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…ld be admissible only when accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act and in the absence thereof it would be inadmissible. The three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. (supra) over-ruling its earlier decision in (2005) 11 SCC 600 State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu held: “14. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65-A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B. Section 65-B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provi…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -XI vs. AMIT MALHOTRA

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…ld be admissible only when accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act and in the absence thereof it would be inadmissible. The three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. (supra) over-ruling its earlier decision in (2005) 11 SCC 600 State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu held: “14. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65-A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B. Section 65-B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provi…

PR. CIT CENTRAL-1 vs. AMRAPALI GRAND

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…ld be admissible only when accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act and in the absence thereof it would be inadmissible. The three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. (supra) over-ruling its earlier decision in (2005) 11 SCC 600 State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu held: “14. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65-A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B. Section 65-B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provi…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…ld be admissible only when accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act and in the absence thereof it would be inadmissible. The three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. (supra) over-ruling its earlier decision in (2005) 11 SCC 600 State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu held: “14. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65-A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B. Section 65-B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provi…

COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-II vs. SPN MILK PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…ld be admissible only when accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act and in the absence thereof it would be inadmissible. The three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. (supra) over-ruling its earlier decision in (2005) 11 SCC 600 State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu held: “14. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65-A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B. Section 65-B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provi…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(CENTRAL)-I vs. SIDDHARATH SAREEN

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…ld be admissible only when accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act and in the absence thereof it would be inadmissible. The three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. (supra) over-ruling its earlier decision in (2005) 11 SCC 600 State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu held: “14. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65-A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B. Section 65-B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provi…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. JUBLIANT OIL & GAS PVT.LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…ld be admissible only when accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act and in the absence thereof it would be inadmissible. The three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. (supra) over-ruling its earlier decision in (2005) 11 SCC 600 State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu held: “14. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65-A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B. Section 65-B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provi…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ACI WIRELESS LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…and examined relevant witnesses to prove the said facts at trial. Reliance is placed upon the observations of Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 157 of 400 of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600. The Court observed that it is difficult to spell out with exactitude the details relating to the starting point of conspiracy and reiterated the view taken by it earlier in its decision in Esher Singh v. State of A.P., (2004) 11 SCC 585 wherein it was held that it is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of the form…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX: DELHI-V vs. RITES LTD.

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…and examined relevant witnesses to prove the said facts at trial. Reliance is placed upon the observations of Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 157 of 400 of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600. The Court observed that it is difficult to spell out with exactitude the details relating to the starting point of conspiracy and reiterated the view taken by it earlier in its decision in Esher Singh v. State of A.P., (2004) 11 SCC 585 wherein it was held that it is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of the form…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX : DELHI -V vs. RITED LTD.

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…and examined relevant witnesses to prove the said facts at trial. Reliance is placed upon the observations of Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 157 of 400 of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600. The Court observed that it is difficult to spell out with exactitude the details relating to the starting point of conspiracy and reiterated the view taken by it earlier in its decision in Esher Singh v. State of A.P., (2004) 11 SCC 585 wherein it was held that it is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of the form…