Can You Amend Pleadings After Evidence Starts? A Guide to Order VI Rule 17 CPC

Sayed Hussain Hydrose Thangal S/o Sayed Abdulla Hydrose Thangal vs K.J. Paul S/o Joseph - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 3132

In any case, if the Waqf Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record in W.O.S No.8/2023, finds that the prayer for recovery of possession is allowable, it would amount to reversing its own finding in W.O.S No.45/2022 like an Appellate Court. ... The question to be resolved in the case on hand is whether the amendment sought for after the completion of evidence to incorporate a plea of recovery of possession of the suit properties which was already disallowed by the Waqf Tribunal on merits after a f....

IFCI LIMITED vs BISHOPGATE CAPITAL LIMITED & ANOR

Whether the Defence after amendment will succeed, is all together another matter to be determined at trial. I thus do not see how the character of the suit has been changed. ... Indeed, on the facts of the present case, even if the allegation can be held to constitute a new cause of action, the amendment is allowable under O 20 r 5(5) as it arises out of the same facts as the original cause of action in which the relief has already been claimed by the appellants in the ... (1) whether the application is....

Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2759

It is only after the amendment in the year 2016 that the law mandates that the prescribed authority has to certify allowable expenditure for deduction. ... That means before the amendment, the assessing authority itself has to be satisfied with the actual amount allowable for deduction and not based on the report of the prescribed authority, though such reports may indicate expenditure. ... Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any evidence or material on....

Chargeable gains, allowable losses and tax relief for allowable losses. ... amendment is RM2,483,015.60; and (3) there was an allowable loss of RM483,015.60 arrived at as follows - By applying the statutory formula under paragraph 34A(3) Schedule 2 of the Act before the amendment- Acquisition price of /p ... Having heard the submission of both parties, perused the documentary evidence and the authorities cited, our findings are as follows - (a) Under paragraph 34A(3) Schedule 2 of....

SYABAS PERMAI SDN BHD vs KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI

Chargeable gains, allowable losses and tax relief for allowable losses. ... acquisition price, there is neither a chargeable gain nor an allowable loss ... Both parties did not call any witness and the case proceeded based on the documentary evidence tendered and submission of Counsel. 5. ... Having heard the submission of both parties, perused the documentary evidence and the authorities cited, our findings are as follows - (a) Under paragraph 34A(3) Schedule 2 of the Act (i.e. prior to its #HL_START....

TARINI TARPULINE PRODUCTIONS VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2001 Supreme(Ori) 520

or misreading relevant evidence or based on partly relevant and partly irrelevant evidence or otherwise perverse, illogical and unreasonable ?" ... No. 404/CTK of 1989 for our opinion : ... "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the secret commission paid by the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,14,450 was not an allowable deduction u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax ... not disclose or evidence of any such payment was not adduced ?" ... ......

T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Limited VS Commissioner of Income Tax - 1999 Supreme(Mad) 2775

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law and acted without evidence or in disregard of material evidence filed by the assessee in, holding that the salary and maintenance expenses paid to Mr. Nicholas Sundaram was not allowable expenditure ? ... Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal about Mr. Nicholas Sundaram's appointment is based on several wrong assumptions wrong appreciation of the evidence and by ignoring material #HL_STA....

Hyderabad Co-operative Central Trading Society Ltd. VS Commissioner of Income Tax - 1987 Supreme(AP) 752

It is immaterial whether the assessee paid the relevant tax or not. What is crucial for purposes of consideration is whether there is any levy of tax. ... Learned counsel also invited our attention to the amendment made by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, with effect from 1/04/1985, to the effect that municipal tax is allowable as a deduction irrespective of the previous year in which the liability to pay such taxes was incurred by the owner according ... We do not find any authority to support ....

Baijat Mallick VS Entaj Mallick - 2024 Supreme(Cal) 1264

Moreover, merits of the pleadings sought to be incorporated by the amendment application was not required to be looked into. Whether the contentions of the petitioners in the amendment application were correct or not, would be decided at the final hearing of the suit, on evidence. ... The only question to be considered by the Court was whether such amendment would be necessary for adjudicating the real controversy between the parties in the suit. The Court could not go into the questio....

Income-tax Officer VS Anil H. Rastogi

Then the next question that arises is as to whether the claims made with a clear intention of reducing tax liability are allowable as a deduction simply on the basis of write off made by the assessee in the books of account. ... The finding of the CIT(A) is not based on any evidence but upon his personal opinion. ... It was further claimed that after the amendment of section 36 any amount written off by the assessee is allowable as a deduction. The findings and the conclusion of the CIT(A) is contained ....

Sanatan Dharam Education Society (Registered), Panipat VS Anil Goyal - 2012 Supreme(P&H) 1321

The aforesaid resolution further speaks that it was decided to constitute a committee for making amendments in the Constitution of the Society. Rather this resolution further indicates that one Jai Bhagwan Goel had raised objection that certain members are not the residents of Panipat, therefore, their membership may be terminated. From the resolution dated 12.09.2010, it appears that the process must have been completed, as the said resolution reveals that the proceedings of the last meeting dated 05.02.2010 were approved. Thereafter, whether the process of amendment was completed....