Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

91 ITR 18Supreme Court of India1973#85 most cited

What is Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala authority for?

Admissions, whether made through entries in account books or statements, are important pieces of evidence but are not conclusive. An assessee has the right to demonstrate that an admission made by them is incorrect or can be retracted.

647

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala · 91 ITR 18 · admission not conclusive · retraction of statement · statement under section 132(4) · evidentiary value of admissions · entries in account books as evidence · proving admission incorrect · Section 68 · Section 69A

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 147Section 68Section 69ASection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statementretracted statementstatement under section 132(4)section 158bbsection 132(4a)dumb documentssection 132(4)on-moneysection 69bloose paperspanchnamasection 158b

Judgments citing Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

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

…decisions wherein the Courts have consistently held that admission, per se, cannot be the foundation of assessment; admission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. - Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) - The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) 22 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satin…

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

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…decisions wherein the Courts have consistently held that admission, per se, cannot be the foundation of assessment; admission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. - Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) - The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64…

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

…decisions wherein the Courts have consistently held that admission, per se, cannot be the foundation of assessment; admission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. - Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) - The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) 22 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satin…

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

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…ng decisions wherein the Courts have consistently held that admission, per se, cannot be the foundation of assessment; admission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) D…

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

…decisions wherein the Courts have consistently held that admission, per se, cannot be the foundation of assessment; admission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. - Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) - The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) 22 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satin…

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

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…decisions wherein the Courts have consistently held that admission, per se, cannot be the foundation of assessment; admission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. - Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) - The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64…

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

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…decisions wherein the Courts have consistently held that admission, per se, cannot be the foundation of assessment; admission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. - Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) - The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64…

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

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…decisions wherein the Courts have consistently held that admission, per se, cannot be the foundation of assessment; admission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. - Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) - The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64…

NARAYANLAL BHANAJI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 588/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pallavi, CIT-DR & Shri Rameshwar P
Section 115BSection 132Section 153CSection 68

…demonstrated to be incorrect or involuntary, such admissions carry considerable evidentiary value. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) wherein it was held that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is open to the person making the admission to show that it is incorrect. In the present case, the assessee has not brought any material to demonstrate that the statement recorded during search proceedings was incorrect or that the seized documents did n…

ROHIT AGGARWAL,AMBALA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 428/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 131Section 153A(1)(b)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.324/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.427/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.428/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Rohit Aggarwal DCIT (Central-2) बनाम/ C/o Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates CR Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ACI…

ROHIT AGGARWAL,AMBALA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 427/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 131Section 153A(1)(b)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.324/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.427/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.428/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Rohit Aggarwal DCIT (Central-2) बनाम/ C/o Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates CR Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ACI…

ROHIT AGGARWAL,ROHIT AGGARWAL, AMBALA CITY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHADIGARH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 324/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 131Section 153A(1)(b)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.324/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.427/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.428/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Rohit Aggarwal DCIT (Central-2) बनाम/ C/o Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates CR Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ACI…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI, GOA vs. BAGKIYA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, GOA

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in aforestated terms

ITA 148/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2017-2018 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Sf-3, Building No.-3. Techno Cidade, Chogam Rd., Alto Porvorim, Goa-403521. Pan: Aaccb9382M . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: None For The Respondent Revenue By: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Revenue’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(2) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges The Order Dt. 29/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Wheeled From The Order Dt. 25/08/2021 Passed U/S 147 Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18.[‘Ay’]

For Appellant: None for theFor Respondent: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 127(2)Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(2)

…ied upon in the light of IMs and admission/statement of other deponent. This view finds strength in the decisions of Hon’ble Courts rendered in ‘Satinder Kumar (HUF) Vs CIT’ [1976 44 CCH 29 (HP)], ‘Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala’ [1973, 91 ITR 18 (SC)], ‘Avadh Kishore Das Vs Ram Gopal’ [AIR 1979 SC 861]. Since in the present case, the facts penned in IMs and confirmed by other employees of the assessee company goes to contrary to director’s retraction, therefore such withdrawal of admission was rightly turn down by the Ld. AO. ITAT-Panaji Page 25 of 39 ACIT Vs M/s Bagkiya Construction Pvt.…

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/166/2025HC Karnataka20 Feb 2026

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

…Commissioner of Income Tax vs. S. Khader Khan Son, [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Madras) (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem vs. S. Khader Khan Son, [2013] 352 ITR 480 (SC) (iii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) (iv) The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Central-3 vs. ARN Infrastructure Ltd., 2023- TIOL-1098-HC-DEL-IT (v) Commissioner of Income-tax-1 vs. Mantri Share Brokers (P.) Ltd., [2018] 96 taxmann.com 279 (Rajasthan) (vi) Kailash Ben Manharlal Chokshi vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2010] 328 ITR 411 (Gujarat) (…

ROHITKUMAR CHINUBHAI MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIR. 5(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1961/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…r been retracted. An admission, unless shown to have been obtained under coercion or subsequently retracted with cogent evidence, constitutes a strong piece of evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, though not conclusive, and the burden lies on the person making it to show that it is incorrect. In the present case, not only has there been no retraction by the purchaser, but the admission stands corroborated by documentary evidence in the form of impounded loose papers…

SAURABHBHAI ROHITBHAI MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIR. 5(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1960/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…r been retracted. An admission, unless shown to have been obtained under coercion or subsequently retracted with cogent evidence, constitutes a strong piece of evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, though not conclusive, and the burden lies on the person making it to show that it is incorrect. In the present case, not only has there been no retraction by the purchaser, but the admission stands corroborated by documentary evidence in the form of impounded loose papers…

M/S SINGLA BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS LIMITED,RUPNAGAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 487/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…ically denied having accepted any unaccounted cash towards sale of properties. It was also contended that documents being print out of excel data never existed. The confession would need corroboration as per the decision in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. (91 ITR 18) holding that though admission is an important piece of evidence but it could not be said to be conclusive one and the maker thereof could show that it was incorrect. Further, a retracted statement would have no evidentiary value and the same could not be used in the assessment. The assessee also demanded cross-examination of Shri Amit Goyal in cas…

M/S CREDO ASSETS PVT. LTD.,RUPNAGAR PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 482/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…ically denied having accepted any unaccounted cash towards sale of properties. It was also contended that documents being print out of excel data never existed. The confession would need corroboration as per the decision in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. (91 ITR 18) holding that though admission is an important piece of evidence but it could not be said to be conclusive one and the maker thereof could show that it was incorrect. Further, a retracted statement would have no evidentiary value and the same could not be used in the assessment. The assessee also demanded cross-examination of Shri Amit Goyal in cas…

SUPRIYA ROY,AGARTALA vs. ITO, WARD-1, AGARTALA, AGARTALA

ITA 101/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am (Through : Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.101/Gty/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year 2018-2019) Vs. Ito Ward-1, Agartala Supriya Roy, Ram Thakur Trading, Central Road, Agartala, Tripura-799001 Pan No.: Acbpr 7501 G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mody, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Santosh Karnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश / Order Per George Mathan, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Id. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Chennai, Dated 13.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. At The Time Of Hearing The Ld.Ar Drew Our Attention To Pages 9 To 16 Of The Paper Book Which Was Copy Of The Written Submission Filed. The Same Reads As Follows:- 2

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Karnani, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…or confession taken during the survey do not serve any useful purpose. 5 ITA No.101/GTY/2025 12 At this juncture, it may also be of some use to point out that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that the entries in the account books of the assessee-company amounted to an admission and though was an important piece of evidence could not be said to be conclusive and that it was open to the person to make an attempt to show that it was incorrect. The legal proposition which can be gleaned from the above dicta, is that a statemen…

M/S CREDO ASSETS PVT. LTD.,RUPNAGAR PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 484/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…ically denied having accepted any unaccounted cash towards sale of properties. It was also contended that documents being print out of excel data never existed. The confession would need corroboration as per the decision in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. (91 ITR 18) holding that though admission is an important piece of evidence but it could not be said to be conclusive one and the maker thereof could show that it was incorrect. Further, a retracted statement would have no evidentiary value and the same could not be used in the assessment. The assessee also demanded cross-examination of Shri Amit Goyal in cas…

Showing 1–20 of 647 · Page 1 of 33

...