Section 109 places the burden of proof on a person who asserts that an established relationship of partnership, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent does not exist or has ceased. Once parties have been shown to have acted in any of those respective capacities, the contrary assertion must be proved by the person making it, rather than by the person relying on the demonstrated relationship.

Where a person's life or death is in question, proof that the person has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of the person if alive shifts the burden of proving continued life to the person asserting that the person remains alive. The rule regulates the evidential burden concerning whether a person is alive or dead.

Section 107 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 allocates the burden of proof where a person's life or death is in issue. Once it is shown that the person was alive within thirty years, the party asserting that the person has died must prove the death. The provision places the evidentiary burden on the affirmative claimant of death in such circumstances.

Burden of proof for a fact especially within a person's knowledge rests on that person. The individual with particular knowledge must establish the fact in question. Where conduct reflects an apparent intention but a different intention is asserted, the person performing the act must prove that differing intention. A person charged with railway travel without a ticket must prove ticket possession.

Section 105 places on an accused person the burden of proving circumstances that bring the case within a General Exception, a special exception or proviso in the Indian Penal Code, or an exception or proviso contained in a law defining the offence. In the absence of such proof, the court must presume that those circumstances do not exist. The burden applies to each asserted exception.

Admissibility of evidence depends on the party tendering it proving any foundational fact required before that evidence may be received. The burden lies on the person seeking to rely on the subsequent evidence. A party relying on a dying declaration must establish the declarant's death, while a party seeking secondary evidence of a document's contents must establish loss of the original document.

Burden of proof for a particular fact rests on the person seeking the Court's belief in that fact, unless another law places that burden on a specified person. A party relying on an alleged admission must establish it, while a person asserting that they were elsewhere at the relevant time must prove that fact.

Burden of proof lies on the person who would fail if neither side produced evidence. A claimant seeking land from a person in possession on the basis of a will must prove the asserted entitlement. Where execution of a bond is admitted but fraud is alleged, the party alleging fraud bears the burden of proving it; absent such proof, the admitted bond supports the claim.

Burden of proof lies on a person seeking a court's judgment concerning a legal right or liability dependent on facts asserted by that person. The person must establish those facts. This applies to allegations of criminal conduct and claims to land based on disputed facts.

Section 100 preserves statutory provisions governing the construction of wills from the effect of evidentiary rules concerning exclusion of oral by documentary evidence. The succession-law framework for construction of wills is identified under Part VI, Chapter VI of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Accordingly, those evidentiary rules do not alter principles applicable to construing wills.

Persons who are neither parties to a written instrument nor their representatives in interest may prove facts indicating a contemporaneous agreement that varies its terms. The restriction against using oral evidence to alter written contractual terms continues to bind the contracting parties themselves. An affected third party may establish a collateral oral agreement.

Evidence may establish the meaning of illegible or not commonly intelligible characters, foreign, obsolete, technical, local or provincial expressions, abbreviations, and words used in a peculiar sense. Where language refers to more than one subject matter, contextual evidence may identify the intended referent, including whether "all my mods" denotes models or modelling tools.

Ambiguous language may be clarified by evidence where it applies partly to each of two existing sets of facts but, taken as a whole, correctly applies to neither. Evidence is confined to identifying which of the two factual subjects the language was intended to denote.

Evidence of facts may identify the person or thing intended where language could apply to any one of several persons or things but could not apply to more than one. This mechanism permits factual identification where a seller has two white horses but agrees to sell "my white horse", or where a reference to Hyderabad may concern either of two places bearing that name.

Madhya Pradesh SGST commencement provisions bring specified amendments into force under the August 2024 framework. Clauses 25, 28 and 33 are deemed effective from 11 February 2025, while clauses 9, 38 and sub-clause (ii) of clause 39 take effect from 1 April 2025. The staggered commencement distinguishes between provisions given deemed effect and provisions operating prospectively.

Subsequently held includes both a taxpayer's own later identification of the correct character of the supply and a finding by a tax officer. Refund may be claimed in either case after payment of tax in the correct head. Rule 89(1A) requires electronic filing of FORM GST RFD-01 within two years from payment of corrected tax; pre-commencement correct-head payments receive the transitional two-year period from commencement. Refund is excluded where tax has been adjusted through a credit note.

Cash deposits made during demonetisation are not unexplained cash credits where recorded cash sales adequately establish their source. Audited books, cash books, stock records, sales details and VAT returns may discharge the taxpayer's burden when they consistently show cash sales as an established part of the business and reveal no defects or manipulation. Acceptance of sales, purchases and stock records supports the explanation, while festive-season sales and intervening bank holidays may explain an increased cash balance. Section 68 does not permit an addition once the nature and source of the deposits are satisfactorily explained.

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.