HomeCasesBuckeye Trust v. PCIT

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Buckeye Trust v. PCIT

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore · Dec 30, 2024

IndiaEditorial impact: lowmisrepresented authorityadministrativetrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Verify statutory provisions as cited and amend citation appropriately. Outcome: Judgment was retracted and case re-heard. Seemingly, the judge cited back hallucinated authorities invoked by one counsel. The Judgment was later reportedly withdrawn.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether cited material supported the proposition attributed to it. The tracked outcome is Judgment was retracted and case re-heard; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: When counsel feeds hallucinations, even judges get burned — verify every authority before citing it back in opinions.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

When counsel feeds hallucinations, even judges get burned — verify every authority before citing it back in opinions.

Record details

CourtIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateDec 30, 2024

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeJudge

OutcomeJudgment was retracted and case re-heard

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Judgment was retracted and case re-heard

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Verify statutory provisions as cited and amend citation appropriately.
Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Outdated provision invoked: Tribunal cites section 164A as the charging provision for oral trusts.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Case mis-cited with inconsistent court/citation: attributed to Bombay High Court but shown as '(Mad)'.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Party name misstated in Rajasthan HC citation as 'Every stone' instead of 'Emery Stone'.
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Definition of 'property' under section 56(2)(x) reduced to only 'shares and securities', ignoring other categories expressly listed in the statute.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Buckeye Trust v. PCIT?: Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Verify statutory provisions as cited and amend citation appropriately. Outcome: Judgment was retracted and case re-heard. Seemingly, the judge cited back hallucinated authorities invoked by one counsel. The Judgment was later reportedly withdrawn.
Why does Buckeye Trust v. PCIT matter for legal AI risk?: When counsel feeds hallucinations, even judges get burned — verify every authority before citing it back in opinions.
What does the public record establish about Buckeye Trust v. PCIT?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Buckeye Trust v. PCIT summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Chryshawna A. and Jeremy Webb v. Sullivan County AssessorTax Court Indiana · Jul 16, 2026misrepresented authority + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026misrepresented authority + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Chilly Moose Ltd. v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026misrepresented authority + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Moosehead Breweries Limited v 14095863 Canada Inc.Trademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026misrepresented authority + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)K.W. v. Ringwood Board of EducationD. New Jersey · Jun 16, 2026misrepresented authority + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)M. D... A. c. Département de l'IsèreTA Grenoble · Jun 4, 2026misrepresented authority + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

When counsel feeds hallucinations, even judges get burned — verify every authority before citing it back in opinions.

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Verify statutory provisions as cited and amend citation appropriately.

Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Outdated provision invoked: Tribunal cites section 164A as the charging provision for oral trusts.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Case mis-cited with inconsistent court/citation: attributed to Bombay High Court but shown as '(Mad)'.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Party name misstated in Rajasthan HC citation as 'Every stone' instead of 'Emery Stone'.

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Definition of 'property' under section 56(2)(x) reduced to only 'shares and securities', ignoring other categories expressly listed in the statute.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Buckeye Trust v. PCIT?

Why does Buckeye Trust v. PCIT matter for legal AI risk?

When counsel feeds hallucinations, even judges get burned — verify every authority before citing it back in opinions.

What does the public record establish about Buckeye Trust v. PCIT?

Which source supports this Buckeye Trust v. PCIT summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.