← All Phrases

“Section 78(6)”

Section References (mined)Section 78Section 78(6)8 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 78(6) is CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78), cited in 897 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 78(6)

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court
897
citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

Hirday Naran v. Income Tax Officer
78 ITR 26 · 1970 · Supreme Court
56
citing judgments

Even if statutory language appears merely enabling, courts infer a duty to exercise such power when it aids a citizen's right. Public authorities cannot decline to act when circumstances warrant help, nor can they act to a person's detriment without justification.

CIT v. H.S. Builders (P) Ltd.
78 DTR 169 · 2012 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Addition of unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be sustained if the assessee has provided sufficient evidence, including the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the creditors, and the creditors have affirmed the transaction. Mere deposit of cash in the creditor's account just before the loan is advanced does not automatically establish that the assessee made the deposit.

Judgments citing Section 78(6)

Shri Saroop Hari, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

ITA 10/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

have to be decided by the authority according to law. The averments made in the petition about furnishing of documents as contemplated by Section 78(6) of the Evidence Act is a matter of legal objection which may be decided by the authority. I.T.A. No. 10/Asr/2021 9 Assessment Year

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Krishan Lal Madhok, Delhi

In the result, all appeals by the revenue are accordingly

ITA 6648/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

prosecution. It is further argued that the data in the pen drive does not satisfy the criterion laid down in section 76 and section 78 (6) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is submitted that from the admitted record, it is clear that neither the French Government clarified about ... certified by the bank in question or the legal keeper. The record is also not certified by any other authority as per Section 78(6) Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The record was received vide letter dated 28.06.2011 from the French Government (page no. 47 and 48). The said letter does

Krishan Lal Madhok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals by the revenue are accordingly

ITA 6269/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

prosecution. It is further argued that the data in the pen drive does not satisfy the criterion laid down in section 76 and section 78 (6) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is submitted that from the admitted record, it is clear that neither the French Government clarified about ... certified by the bank in question or the legal keeper. The record is also not certified by any other authority as per Section 78(6) Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The record was received vide letter dated 28.06.2011 from the French Government (page no. 47 and 48). The said letter does

Krishan Lal Madhok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals by the revenue are accordingly

ITA 6268/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

prosecution. It is further argued that the data in the pen drive does not satisfy the criterion laid down in section 76 and section 78 (6) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is submitted that from the admitted record, it is clear that neither the French Government clarified about ... certified by the bank in question or the legal keeper. The record is also not certified by any other authority as per Section 78(6) Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The record was received vide letter dated 28.06.2011 from the French Government (page no. 47 and 48). The said letter does

ACIT, Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Krishan Lal Madhok, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals by the revenue are accordingly

ITA 3920/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

prosecution. It is further argued that the data in the pen drive does not satisfy the criterion laid down in section 76 and section 78 (6) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is submitted that from the admitted record, it is clear that neither the French Government clarified about ... certified by the bank in question or the legal keeper. The record is also not certified by any other authority as per Section 78(6) Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The record was received vide letter dated 28.06.2011 from the French Government (page no. 47 and 48). The said letter does

ACIT, Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Krishan Lal Madhok, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals by the revenue are accordingly

ITA 3919/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

prosecution. It is further argued that the data in the pen drive does not satisfy the criterion laid down in section 76 and section 78 (6) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is submitted that from the admitted record, it is clear that neither the French Government clarified about ... certified by the bank in question or the legal keeper. The record is also not certified by any other authority as per Section 78(6) Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The record was received vide letter dated 28.06.2011 from the French Government (page no. 47 and 48). The said letter does

ACIT, Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Krishan Lal Madhok, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals by the revenue are accordingly

ITA 3918/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

prosecution. It is further argued that the data in the pen drive does not satisfy the criterion laid down in section 76 and section 78 (6) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is submitted that from the admitted record, it is clear that neither the French Government clarified about ... certified by the bank in question or the legal keeper. The record is also not certified by any other authority as per Section 78(6) Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The record was received vide letter dated 28.06.2011 from the French Government (page no. 47 and 48). The said letter does

ACIT, Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Krishan Lal Madhok, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals by the revenue are accordingly

ITA 3917/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

prosecution. It is further argued that the data in the pen drive does not satisfy the criterion laid down in section 76 and section 78 (6) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is submitted that from the admitted record, it is clear that neither the French Government clarified about ... certified by the bank in question or the legal keeper. The record is also not certified by any other authority as per Section 78(6) Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The record was received vide letter dated 28.06.2011 from the French Government (page no. 47 and 48). The said letter does