97. . - When the language used applies partly to one set of existing facts, and partly to another set of existing facts, but the whole of it does not apply correctly to either, evidence may be given to show to which of the two it was meant to apply. Illustration A agrees to sell to B "my land at X in the occupation of Y". A has land at X, but not in the occupation of Y, and he has land in the occupation of Y but it is not at X. Evidence may be given of facts showing which he meant to sell.... ... ...

96. . - When the facts are such that the language used might have been meant to apply to any one, and could not have been meant to apply to more than one, of several persons or things, evidence may be given of facts which show which of those persons or things it was intended to apply to. Illustrations (a) A agrees to sell to B, for Rs. 1,000, "my white horse". A has two white horses. Evidence may be give of facts which show which of them was meant. (b) A agrees to accompany B to Haidara... ... ...

Commercial Tax Department Ministry, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal Bhopal, the 28th March 2025 No. CT-8-0007-2024-Sec-1-V (CT)(17).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (2) of clause 1 of the notification No. CT-8-0007-2024-Sec-1-V (CT)(19), Bhopal, dated 08th August 2024 of this department, the State Government, hereby : - 1. appoints 11th day of February, 2025 as the date on which the provisions of clause 25, 28 and 33 of the said notification shall deemed to have come ... ... ...

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES EZHILAGAM, CHENNAI- 600 005 PRESENT: Thiru K. PHANINDRA REDDY I.A.S, ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY/ COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX Circular No:02/2022 (2021) - TNGST (PP6/GST-15003/28/2021) Dated: 25.04.2022 Sub: -Reg. Ref: Circular No. 162/18/2021-GST, dated 25.09.2021 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi ****** Represen... ... ...

SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Vibhu Gupta, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 12.02.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred as NFAC or 'FAA') in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-4/10909/2019-20 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 29.12.201... ... ...

Evidence of peculiar meaning is admissible where documentary language is plain on its face but unmeaning when applied to existing facts. Extrinsic evidence may establish that the words were used in a peculiar sense and identify the intended subject matter. Where a deed refers to a house in a place where the transferor owns none, evidence of ownership of a house elsewhere and the transferee's possession may show that the deed concerned that other house.

Plain language in a document, where it accurately applies to existing facts, cannot be contradicted by evidence alleging a different intended application. A deed identifying an estate by its location and stated extent cannot be varied through evidence suggesting that another estate at a different place and of a different size was intended.

For fiscally transparent UK partnerships, Indian-source receipts must be allocated and tested according to each partner's residence and treaty entitlement. India-UK treaty residence applies only to income taxed in the United Kingdom as income of a UK resident. Non-UK resident partners may require examination under India's treaty with their own residence State. Domestic fees-for-technical-services characterisation does not replace treaty analysis, particularly for legal and professional services. Treaty claims require residence certificates, prescribed information, and factual examination of applicable income articles, fixed-base or permanent-establishment tests, and other taxing conditions.

Section 93 excludes evidence of facts intended to explain the meaning of a written instrument where its language is, on its face, ambiguous or defective. The prohibition prevents oral or other extrinsic evidence from identifying an intended meaning or curing an apparent defect. It applies where an agreement states alternative prices without indicating the applicable price and where a deed contains unfilled blanks.

Section 92 excludes oral evidence between parties to a written contract, grant, disposition, or matter required to be in writing when it is offered to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from proved written terms. Exceptions permit proof of invalidating facts, consistent collateral oral agreements on matters left silent, conditions precedent, permissible subsequent oral modifications or rescission, consistent trade usage, and facts connecting the language of the writing with existing facts.

Terms of contracts, grants, property dispositions, and matters legally required to be reduced to writing must be proved through the document itself or admissible secondary evidence of its contents. The rule applies to terms contained in one or several instruments, while proof of one original is sufficient where multiple originals exist. Oral evidence remains admissible to prove independent facts recorded in a document, rather than the written terms themselves.

Section 90A permits the Court to presume that an electronic signature was affixed by the identified person or an authorised person when a five-year-old electronic record is produced from proper custody. Proper custody includes the place and care in which the record would naturally be kept, while custody with a proved or probable legitimate origin is not improper. The same custody explanation applies to the electronic-record presumption under section 81A.

Presumption for documents purporting or proved to be thirty years old permits the Court, where the document is produced from proper custody, to infer the genuineness of signatures and handwriting. In the case of executed or attested documents, the presumption may extend to due execution and attestation. Proper custody includes natural custody and also custody with a proved or probable legitimate origin.

Where a document called for is not produced after notice to produce, the Court must presume it was attested, stamped and executed in the manner required by law. This presumption concerns the formal validity of the unproduced document, including due execution and satisfaction of legal requirements relating to attestation and stamping.

Courts may presume that an electronic message forwarded by its originator through an electronic mail server to its apparent addressee corresponds with the message entered into the originator's computer for transmission. The presumption does not establish the identity of the person who sent the message. "Originator" and "addressee" carry their assigned meanings under information-technology law.

Presumption as to telegraphic messages permits the Court to presume that a message forwarded from a telegraph office to its apparent addressee corresponds with the message delivered for transmission at the stated originating office. No presumption may be drawn regarding the identity of the person who delivered the message for transmission.

Section 87 permits the Court to presume that books referred to for information on public or general interest, and published maps or charts produced for inspection where their statements are relevant facts, were written and published by the person and at the time and place each purports to have been written or published.

Input tax credit claimed in FORM GSTR-3B but absent from FORM GSTR-2A for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 requires invoice-wise verification of statutory eligibility. The claimant must establish possession of valid tax documents, receipt of supplies, payment to the supplier, compliance with reversal requirements, and observance of the credit time limit. Supplier tax payment must be supported by a UDIN-backed Chartered Accountant or Cost Accountant certificate above the prescribed discrepancy threshold, or by a supplier certificate where the discrepancy is within that threshold. The mechanism is confined to bona fide reporting errors and ongoing matters.

Section 86 permits a court to presume that a document presented as a certified copy of a judicial record from a country outside India is genuine and accurate. The presumption applies where the copy appears certified in a manner recognised as commonly used in that country for judicial-record copies. A Political Agent for a territory or place outside India is deemed to be a Central Government representative for this purpose.

Electronic Signature Certificate presumption requires the Court to treat information in an accepted Electronic Signature Certificate as correct unless the contrary is proved. Unverified subscriber information is excluded from that presumption.