Section 85B creates rebuttable evidentiary presumptions for secure electronic records and secure electronic signatures. Secure records are presumed unaltered from the relevant secure-status time, and secure signatures are presumed affixed by the subscriber with intent to sign or approve. No presumption of authenticity or integrity arises for electronic records or signatures that are not secure.

Section 85A creates a mandatory evidentiary presumption for an electronic record purporting to be an agreement and containing the electronic signatures of the parties. The Court must presume that the agreement was concluded through the affixing of those signatures. The presumption is expressed in terms of electronic signatures following substitution of the earlier digital-signature terminology.

Section 85 establishes a mandatory presumption for a purported power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or a representative of the Central Government. The Court must presume its execution and authentication accordingly.

Section 84 establishes a mandatory presumption of genuineness for books purporting to be printed or published under governmental authority and containing a country's laws. It also applies to books purporting to contain reports of decisions of that country's courts, facilitating proof of foreign laws and reported judicial decisions through such publications.

Section 83 creates a mandatory evidentiary presumption for maps or plans purporting to have been made under the authority of the Central Government or a State Government. The Court must presume both that the map or plan was so made and that it is accurate. Maps or plans prepared for the purposes of a cause do not receive that presumption of accuracy and must be proved accurate.

Section 82 requires a court to presume genuine the seal, stamp, or signature on a document purporting to be admissible in England or Ireland without formal authentication. It also requires a presumption that the signatory held the claimed judicial or official character when signing. The document is admissible for the same purpose as in England or Ireland.

Presumption of genuineness applies to an electronic record purporting to be the Official Gazette and to an electronic record that law requires any person to keep. The Court must make that presumption where the record is maintained substantially in the legally required form and is produced from proper custody.

Section 81 requires courts to presume the genuineness of specified gazettes, newspapers, journals, and copies of private Acts of Parliament printed by the Queen's Printer. The presumption also applies to records required by law to be kept where they are maintained substantially in the prescribed form and produced from proper custody. It covers official publications and legally mandated records subject to the applicable form and custody conditions.

Section 80 requires a court to presume genuine a signed record or memorandum of evidence, statement, or confession produced before it. It also requires acceptance of the signatory's stated circumstances of taking and presumption that the evidence, statement, or confession was duly taken in accordance with law.

Section 79 creates a mandatory presumption of genuineness for certificates, certified copies, and other records made admissible by legislation to prove particular facts, where they purport to be duly certified by an authorised public officer. The presumption requires substantial compliance with the legally prescribed form and manner of execution. The Court must also presume that the apparent signatory or certifying person held the official character claimed at the relevant time.

Section 78 governs the proof of public documents through prescribed official records, certified copies, and authorised publications. Governmental acts, orders, notifications, legislative proceedings, and municipal proceedings may be proved through specified departmental records, journals, certified copies, or official publications. Foreign executive and legislative records may be proved through authorised or accepted journals, sealed copies, or statutory recognition. Other foreign public documents require the original or a certified copy, authenticated through notarial, consular, or diplomatic certification and supported by proof of their character under foreign law.

Bank deposits linked to a second PAN require correlation with audited books of account, income-tax returns, and business records maintained under the original PAN before they are treated as unexplained money. The existence of a second PAN does not remove the need to verify whether the deposits and related transactions were already recorded under the original PAN. Verification should also cover the circumstances in which the second PAN was issued and cancelled. Where such verification has not occurred, reassessment after examination of the records and a reasonable opportunity to furnish evidence is required.

Composite sampling of separately seized packets requires recorded verification that the packages match in size, weight, markings and colour-test results, with equal quantities drawn from each. Mixing packet contents without that verification may fail substantial compliance with sampling directions and make samples unreliable representatives of the seized bulk. Sampling defects are assessed for prejudice rather than treated as automatically fatal. Where delayed laboratory dispatch compounds uncertainty over liability for alleged contraband, and the applicant is unlikely to reoffend, reasonable grounds may satisfy statutory bail conditions despite restrictions applicable to commercial-quantity allegations.

From 1 January 2021, the relevant financial year for input tax credit on a debit note is determined by the debit-note issue date, not the underlying invoice. This rule governs credit availed on or after that date for debit notes issued before or after it; credit availed earlier follows the prior framework. A physical invoice need not accompany goods where the e-invoice Quick Response code containing the Invoice Reference Number is produced electronically. Exported goods face the accumulated input tax credit refund restriction only where export duty is actually payable.

Cash-deposit addition for unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE cannot be assessed in a dissolved partnership firm's hands when the relevant bank account is owned and operated by an individual proprietor. Where the proprietor acknowledges the account and reports its transactions in her income-tax return, assessment must be directed to the appropriate person, subject to law.

Proof of public documents may be made by producing certified copies that purport to reproduce the contents of the relevant public document or any part of it. Such certified copies serve as proof of the contents represented in them.

Certified copies of public documents must be supplied by a public officer having custody of a document that a person is entitled to inspect, on demand and payment of legally prescribed fees. Each copy must include a dated certificate confirming it is a true copy, signed by the responsible officer with the officer's official title and sealed where authorised. An officer ordinarily authorised to deliver such copies is deemed to have custody of the document.

Private documents are defined through a residual classification: every document that does not qualify as a public document falls within the category of private documents. Public-document status is the determining exclusion; absent that status, a document is treated as private under the evidentiary classification. The classification therefore creates a default category for non-public documents.

Section 74 classifies public documents as documents forming acts, or records of acts, of sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers exercising legislative, judicial, or executive functions in India, the Commonwealth, or foreign countries. It also includes public records kept in any State of private documents.

Proof of a digital signature may be established by requiring production of the relevant Digital Signature Certificate from the purported signatory, the Controller, or the Certifying Authority. The Court may also direct another person to apply the public key listed in that certificate to verify whether the digital signature was affixed by the person it purports to identify.