State of U.P v. Ram Babu Misra

2 SCC 343Reported decision1992#5990 most cited

What is State of U.P v. Ram Babu Misra authority for?

The Supreme Court observed that Section 311-A of the Cr.P.C. regulates the procedure for obtaining handwriting exemplars, serving as a procedural safeguard rather than a source of power. This provision was enacted to regulate the previously uncanalised power to obtain such evidence.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

State of U.P v. Ram Babu Misra · Section 311-A Cr.P.C. · handwriting exemplars · procedural safeguard · uncanalised power · evidence admissibility

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250

Judgments citing State of U.P v. Ram Babu Misra

Shri Veershaiv Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Circle 2, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 175/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.175/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 250

…er: 5 Shri Veershaiv Coop. Bank Ltd., “After reading of the decision of the High Court, we find that the High Court has rightly relied upon the judgment of this Court in “Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India” (1992) 2 SCC 343. Since the case is squarely covered by the judgment, we do not find any merit in these appeals and petitions which are accordingly, dismissed.” It is also correct to state that there can be no estoppel against a settled position in law [See Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. 29 ITR 661 at 665 and Commissioner of In…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op.Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 606/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…gainst the said judgment held as under: “After reading of the decision of the High Court, we find that the High Court has rightly relied upon the judgment of this Court in “Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India” (1992) 2 SCC 343. Since the case is squarely covered by the judgment, we do not find any merit in these appeals and petitions which are accordingly, dismissed.” It is also correct to state that there can be no estoppel against a settled position in law [See Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. 29 ITR 661 at 665 and Commissioner of Inc…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op.Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 605/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…gainst the said judgment held as under: “After reading of the decision of the High Court, we find that the High Court has rightly relied upon the judgment of this Court in “Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India” (1992) 2 SCC 343. Since the case is squarely covered by the judgment, we do not find any merit in these appeals and petitions which are accordingly, dismissed.” It is also correct to state that there can be no estoppel against a settled position in law [See Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. 29 ITR 661 at 665 and Commissioner of Inc…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op.Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 604/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…gainst the said judgment held as under: “After reading of the decision of the High Court, we find that the High Court has rightly relied upon the judgment of this Court in “Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India” (1992) 2 SCC 343. Since the case is squarely covered by the judgment, we do not find any merit in these appeals and petitions which are accordingly, dismissed.” It is also correct to state that there can be no estoppel against a settled position in law [See Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. 29 ITR 661 at 665 and Commissioner of Inc…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op .Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2611/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…gainst the said judgment held as under: “After reading of the decision of the High Court, we find that the High Court has rightly relied upon the judgment of this Court in “Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India” (1992) 2 SCC 343. Since the case is squarely covered by the judgment, we do not find any merit in these appeals and petitions which are accordingly, dismissed.” It is also correct to state that there can be no estoppel against a settled position in law [See Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. 29 ITR 661 at 665 and Commissioner of Inc…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Syengene

In the result, this writ petition is not only

ITA/185/2016HC Karnataka02 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar Company Application No. 185 Of 2016 In Company Petition No.182/2014 Between: India Awake For Transparency A Not For Profit Company Incorporated Under Section 25 Of The Companies Act 1956 Having Its Registered Office D - 1, Srishti Cresendo , No 24, Desika Road, Chennai - 600004 Tamilnadu. Represented By Its Authorised Signatory Mr R Subramanian

Section 25

…dlays Bank Ltd., vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Others - 1980 (Supp) SCC 420; (x) Harbhajan Singh vs. Karam Singh and Others - AIR 1966 SC 641; (xi) Peerless General Finance Investment Company Limited and Another vs. RBI - (1992) 2 SCC 343; (xii) Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited and Another vs. CSEPDI-TRISHE Consortium and Another - 2017 4 SCC 318; (xiii) Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union vs. Management of M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited.- (2005) 13 SCC 177; (xiv) SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited vs. TUFF Drilling Private Limi…

The Peerless Gen.Fin and Investment Company Limited vs. Commnr. of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-001265-001265 - 2007Supreme Court09 Jul 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…confirmed the same. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, on the other hand, allowed the appeals by relying upon the judgment of this Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Limited and Another vs. Reserve Bank of India, (1992) 2 SCC 343 in which, according to the Appellate Tribunal, this Court finally decided the question in the assessee’s own case stating that such amounts cannot be treated to be income but are in the nature of capital receipts. These were not only because of the interpretation of an RBI Circular of 1987, but 2 also because, on general principles, such amounts…

Sri Chituri Durga Rao vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/41507/2017HC Karnataka13 Dec 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice G. Narendar Writ Petition No.41506/2017 (Apmc) C/W Writ Petition No.41507/2017 (Apmc)

Section 17

…and then chapter by chapter, section by section and word by word. {See Reserve Bank of India, v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd, [ (1987) 1 SCC 424 ] ; Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India, [ (1992) 2 SCC 343 ] and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh.” “100. Thus, in a case where interpretation of a Section vis-`-vis the scheme of the Act, the purport and object of the legislation, particularly having regard o the mischief it seeks to remedy; the chapter heading as also the marginal note, in our opinion, are relevant.” “101. -…

Nirmala Bagodi vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/41506/2017HC Karnataka13 Dec 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice G. Narendar Writ Petition No.41506/2017 (Apmc) C/W Writ Petition No.41507/2017 (Apmc)

Section 17

…and then chapter by chapter, section by section and word by word. {See Reserve Bank of India, v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd, [ (1987) 1 SCC 424 ] ; Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India, [ (1992) 2 SCC 343 ] and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh.” “100. Thus, in a case where interpretation of a Section vis-`-vis the scheme of the Act, the purport and object of the legislation, particularly having regard o the mischief it seeks to remedy; the chapter heading as also the marginal note, in our opinion, are relevant.” “101. -…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1) vs. Late Shri Sudhir Sareen

ITA/284/2015HC Delhi06 Jul 2015

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

Section 375

…Article 13, if a provision is found to be unconstitutional, the courts must act; holding that the matter is within the ken of the legislature is not a correct approach. [See Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India, (1992) 2 SCC 343, paragraphs 48 to 50; and Independent Thought, paragraphs 166 and 167.] 33. The number of people affected or harmed by the impugned provisions cannot disentitle others from seeking relief from this court as this would be an irrelevant consideration while deciding upon the rights of parties. [See Shayara Bano, paragraphs 56 and 57 and Navtej S…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-I, New Delhi vs. M/S Aci Wireless Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/313/2013HC Delhi10 Dec 2013

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

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…fect from 23.06.2006 only regulates the procedure for obtaining such handwriting exemplars and was enacted in furtherance of the observations of the Supreme Court of India in its judgment in the case of State of U.P v. Ram Babu Misra, reported as (1980) 2 SCC 343. The said provision cannot be construed to be a provision which provides the source of power for obtaining handwriting exemplars but only a procedural safeguard introduced by the legislature for future to regulate the otherwise uncanalised power which pre- existed before enactment of the said provision. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. P…

Commissioner of Income Tax: Delhi-V vs. Rites Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/295/2013HC Delhi06 Dec 2013

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

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…fect from 23.06.2006 only regulates the procedure for obtaining such handwriting exemplars and was enacted in furtherance of the observations of the Supreme Court of India in its judgment in the case of State of U.P v. Ram Babu Misra, reported as (1980) 2 SCC 343. The said provision cannot be construed to be a provision which provides the source of power for obtaining handwriting exemplars but only a procedural safeguard introduced by the legislature for future to regulate the otherwise uncanalised power which pre- existed before enactment of the said provision. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. P…

Commissioner of Income Tax : Delhi -V vs. Rited Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/293/2013HC Delhi06 Dec 2013

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

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…fect from 23.06.2006 only regulates the procedure for obtaining such handwriting exemplars and was enacted in furtherance of the observations of the Supreme Court of India in its judgment in the case of State of U.P v. Ram Babu Misra, reported as (1980) 2 SCC 343. The said provision cannot be construed to be a provision which provides the source of power for obtaining handwriting exemplars but only a procedural safeguard introduced by the legislature for future to regulate the otherwise uncanalised power which pre- existed before enactment of the said provision. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. P…

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. R.L. Khera Charitable Trust

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/268/2013HC Delhi27 Nov 2013

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

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…fect from 23.06.2006 only regulates the procedure for obtaining such handwriting exemplars and was enacted in furtherance of the observations of the Supreme Court of India in its judgment in the case of State of U.P v. Ram Babu Misra, reported as (1980) 2 SCC 343. The said provision cannot be construed to be a provision which provides the source of power for obtaining handwriting exemplars but only a procedural safeguard introduced by the legislature for future to regulate the otherwise uncanalised power which pre- existed before enactment of the said provision. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. P…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, New Delhi vs. Mira Exim Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/346/2013HC Delhi03 Oct 2013

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

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…fect from 23.06.2006 only regulates the procedure for obtaining such handwriting exemplars and was enacted in furtherance of the observations of the Supreme Court of India in its judgment in the case of State of U.P v. Ram Babu Misra, reported as (1980) 2 SCC 343. The said provision cannot be construed to be a provision which provides the source of power for obtaining handwriting exemplars but only a procedural safeguard introduced by the legislature for future to regulate the otherwise uncanalised power which pre- existed before enactment of the said provision. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. P…

CIT VI vs. Verizon India Pvt Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/277/2013HC Delhi29 May 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…fect from 23.06.2006 only regulates the procedure for obtaining such handwriting exemplars and was enacted in furtherance of the observations of the Supreme Court of India in its judgment in the case of State of U.P v. Ram Babu Misra, reported as (1980) 2 SCC 343. The said provision cannot be construed to be a provision which provides the source of power for obtaining handwriting exemplars but only a procedural safeguard introduced by the legislature for future to regulate the otherwise uncanalised power which pre- existed before enactment of the said provision. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. P…

New Delhi Hotels Ltd vs. ACIT

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/238/2013HC Delhi17 May 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…fect from 23.06.2006 only regulates the procedure for obtaining such handwriting exemplars and was enacted in furtherance of the observations of the Supreme Court of India in its judgment in the case of State of U.P v. Ram Babu Misra, reported as (1980) 2 SCC 343. The said provision cannot be construed to be a provision which provides the source of power for obtaining handwriting exemplars but only a procedural safeguard introduced by the legislature for future to regulate the otherwise uncanalised power which pre- existed before enactment of the said provision. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. P…

CIT vs. Manju Bansal

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/205/2013HC Delhi30 Apr 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…fect from 23.06.2006 only regulates the procedure for obtaining such handwriting exemplars and was enacted in furtherance of the observations of the Supreme Court of India in its judgment in the case of State of U.P v. Ram Babu Misra, reported as (1980) 2 SCC 343. The said provision cannot be construed to be a provision which provides the source of power for obtaining handwriting exemplars but only a procedural safeguard introduced by the legislature for future to regulate the otherwise uncanalised power which pre- existed before enactment of the said provision. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. P…

CIT vs. Nirmal Bansal

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/198/2013HC Delhi30 Apr 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi

…fect from 23.06.2006 only regulates the procedure for obtaining such handwriting exemplars and was enacted in furtherance of the observations of the Supreme Court of India in its judgment in the case of State of U.P v. Ram Babu Misra, reported as (1980) 2 SCC 343. The said provision cannot be construed to be a provision which provides the source of power for obtaining handwriting exemplars but only a procedural safeguard introduced by the legislature for future to regulate the otherwise uncanalised power which pre- existed before enactment of the said provision. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. P…

State of U.P v. Ram Babu Misra (2 SCC 343) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax