https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202399 Section 193 IPC was held inapplicable because false evidence requires a judicial proceeding or fabrication for use in one, and mere possession of two agreements with different values did not satisfy that standard. Section 276C(1) of the Income-tax Act was treated differently: the seized agreements showing differing values for the same construction transaction furnished prima facie material for wilful tax evasion under the Explanation. However, because the prosecution arose from one alleged act and one transaction, only one complaint was maintainable; the other two complaints were duplicative and liable to be quashed. en-us Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Dec 2012 18:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202399 Section 193 IPC was held inapplicable because false evidence requires a judicial proceeding or fabrication for use in one, and mere possession of two agreements with different values did not satisfy that standard. Section 276C(1) of the Income-tax Act was treated differently: the seized agreements showing differing values for the same construction transaction furnished prima facie material for wilful tax evasion under the Explanation. However, because the prosecution arose from one alleged act and one transaction, only one complaint was maintainable; the other two complaints were duplicative and liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202399