(i) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerela

215 CTR 489High Court2008#17216 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 115JBSection 132Section 132(4A)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 50personcompanysection 143(3)nfactotal incomedocument

Judgments citing (i) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerela

Abdul Lathief Mahammed Arif, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-5(2), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1853/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. P.N.Rajan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 54F

…property was jointly owned and the assessee’s share was only 40%. Reliance was placed on several judicial precedents including: • Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713) (SC) • CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (282 ITR 259) (Mad) • CIT v. Bhanwarlal Murwatiya (215 CTR 489) (Raj) • Paramjit Singh v. ITO (P&H HC) • ITO v. W.D. Estate (P) Ltd. (45 ITD 473) (Bom) 5. The Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. It was contended that: • The seized loose sheet clearly reflected the actual sale consideration. • The purchaser had admitted payment of cash during search proceedings. • The assessee himself admit…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

…d in following decisions:  Kishinchand Chellaram –vs.- CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) [Income-tax authorities is bound to produce evidence relied upon so that the assessee could controvert the statements contained in it]  CIT -vs.- Bhanwarlal Murwatiya (2008) 215 CTR 489 (Raj): When none of the witnesses were examined before the A.O., and assessee did not have any opportunity to cross examine the statements given by the witnesses, addition cannot be made by AO.  Heirs and Legal Representatives of Late Laxmanbhai S. Patel –vs.- CIT (2010) 327 ITR 290 (Guj.) [Addition made based on statement recorded without furni…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle -2, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

…d in following decisions:  Kishinchand Chellaram –vs.- CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) [Income-tax authorities is bound to produce evidence relied upon so that the assessee could controvert the statements contained in it]  CIT -vs.- Bhanwarlal Murwatiya (2008) 215 CTR 489 (Raj): When none of the witnesses were examined before the A.O., and assessee did not have any opportunity to cross examine the statements given by the witnesses, addition cannot be made by AO.  Heirs and Legal Representatives of Late Laxmanbhai S. Patel –vs.- CIT (2010) 327 ITR 290 (Guj.) [Addition made based on statement recorded without furni…

Shri Jaisingh Yadav, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3 Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1291/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1290 & 1291/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16 Cuke Jaisingh Yadav, A.C.I.T., Vs. 1, Mehta Ki Dhani, Chandra Nagar- Central Circle-3, A, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acwpy 5493 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 18/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are Reproduced As Under: Grounds Of Ita No. 1290/Jp/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. The Learned Ao Has Seriously Erred In Law & Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 1274700 In The Income Of Assessee As Undisclosed Income. Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Has Seriously Erred In Rejecting The Appeal Of Assessee & Confirming The Additions Without Considering The Appeal Submission & On Wrong Premise. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Referring The Copy Of Itr Of Female Family Members Of Assessee As Certain Loose Documents Which Contained Incriminating Transaction & Also Erred In Stating That The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 292C

…rove that surrender by assessee was correct. The assessee has placed reliance on the following judgements in support of his submission: (i) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs State of Kerela [1973]19 ITR 18 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Bhanwar Lal Murwatiya [2008] 215 CTR 489 (RAJ.), (iii) CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.), 9 ITA 1290 & 1291/JP/2019_ Jaisingh Yadav Vs ACIT (iv) Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax 1973 88 ITR 293 P H- (v) Gajjam Chinna Yellappa Vs Income tax Officer [2015] 59 taxmann.com 69 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) Chitra Devi v/s ACIT (2002) 28 Tax- world 454 (I…

Shri Jaisingh Yadav, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3 Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1290/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1290 & 1291/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16 Cuke Jaisingh Yadav, A.C.I.T., Vs. 1, Mehta Ki Dhani, Chandra Nagar- Central Circle-3, A, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acwpy 5493 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 18/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are Reproduced As Under: Grounds Of Ita No. 1290/Jp/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. The Learned Ao Has Seriously Erred In Law & Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 1274700 In The Income Of Assessee As Undisclosed Income. Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Has Seriously Erred In Rejecting The Appeal Of Assessee & Confirming The Additions Without Considering The Appeal Submission & On Wrong Premise. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Referring The Copy Of Itr Of Female Family Members Of Assessee As Certain Loose Documents Which Contained Incriminating Transaction & Also Erred In Stating That The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 292C

…rove that surrender by assessee was correct. The assessee has placed reliance on the following judgements in support of his submission: (i) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs State of Kerela [1973]19 ITR 18 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Bhanwar Lal Murwatiya [2008] 215 CTR 489 (RAJ.), (iii) CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.), 9 ITA 1290 & 1291/JP/2019_ Jaisingh Yadav Vs ACIT (iv) Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax 1973 88 ITR 293 P H- (v) Gajjam Chinna Yellappa Vs Income tax Officer [2015] 59 taxmann.com 69 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) Chitra Devi v/s ACIT (2002) 28 Tax- world 454 (I…

(i) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerela (215 CTR 489) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax