PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. v. STATE OF KERALA

225 ITR 870High Court#15356 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,627 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. v. STATE OF KERALA

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Dipak Kalani, Indore

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1045/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…under duress cannot bind the maker of the admission. d) The decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Shree Ganesh Trading Co Vs CIT as reported in 30 taxmann.com 170, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Banwarilal as reported in 225 ITR 870, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Radhakishan Goyal as reported in 278 ITR 454, Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of ACIT vs Sushil Devi S Agrawal as reported in 50 ITD 524, Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Ms Aishwarya K Rai vs DCIT as reported in 104 ITD 166 and Hon'ble Jaipur Bench of ITAT in the case of Cha…

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Pankaj Kalani, Indore

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1044/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…under duress cannot bind the maker of the admission. d) The decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Shree Ganesh Trading Co Vs CIT as reported in 30 taxmann.com 170, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Banwarilal as reported in 225 ITR 870, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Radhakishan Goyal as reported in 278 ITR 454, Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of ACIT vs Sushil Devi S Agrawal as reported in 50 ITD 524, Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Ms Aishwarya K Rai vs DCIT as reported in 104 ITD 166 and Hon'ble Jaipur Bench of ITAT in the case of Cha…

Satya Narayan Choudhary, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 392/JODH/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…973) 88 ITR 432 (SC)]. An admission made by the assessee before the Income-tax authorities is an important piece of evidence but he is entitled to show that such an admission was made out of ignorance of law or it was otherwise vitiated [C.I.T. v. Bhanwarlal 225 ITR 870 (Raj)]. the statement made by an assessee u/s 132 (4) is not always a universal truth. The statement of the assessee should be corroborated with the facts on record and documents seized at the time of search to ascertain its reliability. The law of natural justice and fair play demands that the surrounding circumstances and other relevant factors…

Satya Narayan Choudhary, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 266/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…973) 88 ITR 432 (SC)]. An admission made by the assessee before the Income-tax authorities is an important piece of evidence but he is entitled to show that such an admission was made out of ignorance of law or it was otherwise vitiated [C.I.T. v. Bhanwarlal 225 ITR 870 (Raj)]. the statement made by an assessee u/s 132 (4) is not always a universal truth. The statement of the assessee should be corroborated with the facts on record and documents seized at the time of search to ascertain its reliability. The law of natural justice and fair play demands that the surrounding circumstances and other relevant factors…

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Shreeji Sulz Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 669/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Prakhul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…, to the extent of excess stock is explained with plausible documents, by settled law on admission and retraction by ratios of following judgments in cases of: PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. V. STATE OF KERALA [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC): " C.I.T. V. BHANWARLAL 225 ITR 870 (RAJ): " KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI VS CIT (2008) 14 DTR 257 (GUJ.): 5.3.19 In view of above finding it is also held that, the inescapable conclusion to a great extent in the present case is that, the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act was not the only piece of evidence for making assessment u/s 153A1143(3) of the Act for the Ld. Assessin…

Shreejesulz Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 507/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Prakhul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…, to the extent of excess stock is explained with plausible documents, by settled law on admission and retraction by ratios of following judgments in cases of: PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. V. STATE OF KERALA [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC): " C.I.T. V. BHANWARLAL 225 ITR 870 (RAJ): " KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI VS CIT (2008) 14 DTR 257 (GUJ.): 5.3.19 In view of above finding it is also held that, the inescapable conclusion to a great extent in the present case is that, the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act was not the only piece of evidence for making assessment u/s 153A1143(3) of the Act for the Ld. Assessin…

PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. v. STATE OF KERALA (225 ITR 870) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax