CIT, Kozhikode v. O. Abdul Razak

350 ITR 71High Court2013#2119 most cited

What is CIT, Kozhikode v. O. Abdul Razak authority for?

A statement made under oath, particularly under Section 132(4) during a search, is presumed true and binding. Its retraction requires timely action and concrete evidence demonstrating coercion or error, not just a self-serving denial.

55

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

O. Abdul Razak · CIT Kozhikode v. O. Abdul Razak · Section 132(4) · retraction of statement · voluntary admission · search assessment · burden of proof retraction · statement under oath · 350 ITR 71 · 20 Taxmann.com 38

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 38

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 131(1A)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 158bb(1)retraction of statementgaarsection 158b(b)section 158bbvoluntary admissionsection 194qsection 153c(1)section 131(1a)statement under section 132(4)block periodsection 292b

Judgments citing CIT, Kozhikode v. O. Abdul Razak

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…admission made in the statement at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was even seem to have been attempted to be discharged." (c)- The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT v. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48/207 Taxman 193 (Mag.[20131 350 ITR 71 held that a self-serving retraction, without anything more cannot dispel statement made under oath under section 132(4). A statement made under oath deemed and permitted to be used in evidence, by express statutory provision, must be taken as true unless there is contra evidence to dispel such assumption. 5.3.4.13 In this context, it is also esse…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…admission made in the statement at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was even seem to have been attempted to be discharged." (c)- The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT v. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48/207 Taxman 193 (Mag.[20131 350 ITR 71 held that a self-serving retraction, without anything more cannot dispel statement made under oath under section 132(4). A statement made under oath deemed and permitted to be used in evidence, by express statutory provision, must be taken as true unless there is contra evidence to dispel such assumption. 5.3.4.13 In this context, it is also esse…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…admission made in the statement at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was even seem to have been attempted to be discharged." (c)- The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT v. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48/207 Taxman 193 (Mag.[20131 350 ITR 71 held that a self-serving retraction, without anything more cannot dispel statement made under oath under section 132(4). A statement made under oath deemed and permitted to be used in evidence, by express statutory provision, must be taken as true unless there is contra evidence to dispel such assumption. 5.3.4.13 In this context, it is also esse…

M/S ANKUR DEVELOPERS & REALTORS ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is rejected

ITA 428/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 68

…rate coercion, threat, or misconception at the time of the original statement, which was not shown in the present case. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents such as Ravindra Trivedi (215 CTR 312), Hiralal Maganlal & Co. (96 ITD 113), and D. Abdul Razak (350 ITR 71), which establish that delayed retractions, unsupported by cogent reasons, cannot dislodge admissions made voluntarily. 6.2 With respect to the contention that necessary documentation was filed, the Ld. CIT(A) held that mere furnishing of confirmations, financial statements, PAN details, and bank extracts cannot, in the face of contrary evidence,…

SMT. SHARADA, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI. MUTTEGERE JAVAREGOWDA APPAJI.,SHIMOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (4)., QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2098/BANG/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21 Smt. Sharada, Vs. Dcit, Legal Heir Of Late Shri. Muttegere Central Circle – 1(4), Javaregowda Appaji, Bangalore. Jq 1, New Town, Bhardravathi, Shimoga, Bhadravathi H.O 577 301, Karnataka. Pan : Apkpa 7777 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Balram R Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132oSection 142(1)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 Smt. Sharada, Vs. DCIT, Legal Heir of Late Shri. Muttegere Central Circle – 1(4), Javaregowda Appaji, Bangalore. JQ 1, New Town, Bhardravathi, Shimoga, Bhadravathi H.O 577 301, Karnataka. PAN : APKPA 7777 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Balram R Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 19.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Me…

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 987/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ce at all inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record.” (ii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows: ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023 M/s. John Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 37 of 147 “As self-serving retraction, without anythin…

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 986/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sri T.M. Shivakumar

…t\nall inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the\nassessee himself and other corroborative material are there on\nrecord.”\n(ii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT,\nKozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71\n(Kerala) where held as follows:\nPage 37 of 147\n“As self-serving retraction, without anything more cannot dispel\nstatement made under oath under section 132(4)”.\n(iii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of\nMahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. CIT, Ranchi reported in (2014) 266 CTR\n175 (Kharkhan) (9.1.2014) wherein held as under:\n…

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 985/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

…nall inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the\nassessee himself and other corroborative material are there on\nrecord.”\n\n(ii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT,\nKozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71\n(Kerala) where held as follows:\n\n\n“As self-serving retraction, without anything more cannot dispel\nstatement made under oath under section 132(4)”.\n\n(iii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of\nMahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. CIT, Ranchi reported in (2014) 266 CTR\n175 (Kharkhan) (9.1.2014) wherein held as under:\n\n“Where a…

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 847/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ce at all inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record.” (ii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows: ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023 M/s. John Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 37 of 147 “As self-serving retraction, without anythin…

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 846/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

…nce at all inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record.” (ii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows:ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.844/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023 M/s. John Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 37 of 147 “As self-serving retracti…

JOHN DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 845/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ce at all inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record.” (ii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows: ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023 M/s. John Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 37 of 147 “As self-serving retraction, without anythin…

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 842/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

…t\nall inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the\nassessee himself and other corroborative material are there on\nrecord.”\n(ii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT,\nKozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71\n(Kerala) where held as follows:\n“As self-serving retraction, without anything more cannot dispel\nstatement made under oath under section 132(4)”.\n(iii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of\nMahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. CIT, Ranchi reported in (2014) 266 CTR\n175 (Kharkhan) (9.1.2014) wherein held as under:\n“Where assessee…

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 841/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ce at all inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record.” (ii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows: ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023 M/s. John Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 37 of 147 “As self-serving retraction, without anythin…

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 840/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ce at all inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record.” (ii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows: ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023 M/s. John Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 37 of 147 “As self-serving retraction, without anythin…

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 839/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ce at all inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record.” (ii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows: ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023 M/s. John Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 37 of 147 “As self-serving retraction, without anythin…

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 838/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ce at all inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record.” (ii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows: ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023 M/s. John Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 37 of 147 “As self-serving retraction, without anythin…

LAXMI MEMORIAL EDUCATION TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 756/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132

…ce at all inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record.” (ii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows: “IT: As self-serving retraction, without anything more cannot dispel statement made under oath under section 132(4)”. (iii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. CIT, Ranchi reported in (2014) 266 CTR 175 (Kharkhan) (9.1.2014) wherein held as under: “IT: Where assesse…

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

ITA 435/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…nall inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the\nassessee himself and other corroborative material are there on\nrecord.\"\n(ii)\nJudgement of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT,\nKozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71\n(Kerala) where held as follows:\n\"IT: As self-serving, retraction, without anything more cannot disprove\nstatement made under oath under section 132(4)\".\n(iii) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of\nMahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. CIT, Ranchi reported in (2014) 266 CTR\n175 (Kharkhan) (9.1.2014) wherein held as under:\n\"IT: W…

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

ITA 434/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…nce at all inasmuch as evidence in the form of the statement made by the assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record." (ii) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows: "IT: As self-serving refutation, without anything more cannot dispel statement made under oath under section 132(4)". (iii) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. CIT, Ranchi reported in (2014) 266 CTR 175 (Kharkhan) (9.1.2014) wherein held as under: "IT: Where assessee…

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…imself and other corroborative material are there on record.” ITA Nos.431 to 435/Bang/2024 M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited, Mangaluru Page 31 of 73 (ii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT, Kozhikode Vs. O. Abdul Razak reported in (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Kerala) where held as follows: “IT: As self-serving retraction, without anything more cannot dispel statement made under oath under section 132(4)”. (iii) Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. CIT, Ranchi reported in (2014) 266 CTR 175 (Kharkhan) (9.1.2014) wherein held as under: “IT: Where assesse…

Showing 1–20 of 55 · Page 1 of 3