https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6648 The High Court of Madras interpreted section 137(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in a case where petitioners disputed a promissory note executed by their father. The court held that section 137(5) does not lift the prohibition imposed by section 137(1) on the court or any public servant. The court referenced precedents to emphasize that the prohibition against the court or public servant is absolute, even if the maker of the statement waives the privilege. The court found section 137(3)(xxi) inapplicable and dismissed the petition, stating it was bound by the law in force at the time of the application's disposal. en-us Thu, 14 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6648 The High Court of Madras interpreted section 137(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in a case where petitioners disputed a promissory note executed by their father. The court held that section 137(5) does not lift the prohibition imposed by section 137(1) on the court or any public servant. The court referenced precedents to emphasize that the prohibition against the court or public servant is absolute, even if the maker of the statement waives the privilege. The court found section 137(3)(xxi) inapplicable and dismissed the petition, stating it was bound by the law in force at the time of the application's disposal. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 14 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6648