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

91 ITR 18Supreme Court of India1973#84 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.

666

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,416 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 (Central), Jabalpur vs. M/S. Jabalpur Hospital & Research Center, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 19/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Vs. Jabalpur Hospital & Central Circle, Researchcentre,Pvtltd Ramnath Russel Crossing, Building,Napier Town, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001, Jabalpur-482001 Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent Co.No.04/Jab/2019 (A.Y. 2016-17) (In Ita No.19/Jab/2019) Jabalpur Hospital & Vs. Dcit, Research Centre Pvt Ltd, Central Circle, Russel Crossing, Ramnath Napier Town, Building,Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Jabalpur-482001. Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai.CA.ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)

…found. It is stated that the assessee was under mental pressure and tired. Therefore, to buy peace of mind, he accepted and declared Rs.1,75,00,000/- in the name of hospital. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 18 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that admission cannot be said that it is conclusive. Retraction from admission was permissible in law and it was open to the person who made the ITA No. 19/JAB/2019 & CO. 04/JAB/2019 M/s Jabalpur Hospital & Research Centre, Jabalpur. admission to show that it was incorrect. However, reliance is placed on the…

Assiatant Commissioner of Income Tax Phagwara Circle, Phagwara vs. Shri Harmesh Kumar, Phillaur

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 42/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT DR
Section 133A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 40/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Sh. Chuni Lal Gaba Income Tax, Phagwara Circle, S/o Sh. Mehnga Ram Phagwara Dilbagh Colony, Goraya, Tehsil Phillaur, Jalandhar [PAN: AAGPL 8510L] (Appellant (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 41/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Sh. Gurmesh Kumar Income Tax, Phagwara Circle, S/o Sh. Chuni Lal, G.T. Phagwara Road, Dilbagh Colony, Bada Pind Road, Goraya, Jalandhar [PAN: AG…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Phagwara Circle, Phagwara vs. Shri Chuni Lal, Phillaur

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 40/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT DR
Section 133A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 40/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Sh. Chuni Lal Gaba Income Tax, Phagwara Circle, S/o Sh. Mehnga Ram Phagwara Dilbagh Colony, Goraya, Tehsil Phillaur, Jalandhar [PAN: AAGPL 8510L] (Appellant (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 41/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Sh. Gurmesh Kumar Income Tax, Phagwara Circle, S/o Sh. Chuni Lal, G.T. Phagwara Road, Dilbagh Colony, Bada Pind Road, Goraya, Jalandhar [PAN: AG…

Trishul Buildtech Infrastruture (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1367/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…tate of Karnataka ILR 2004 Kar 2025 ii) CIT v. V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 57 iii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) iv) Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubrimaniam CIT (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom.). 6. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that as far as provisions of section 170(1) of the Act, if there is succession in the business of assessee, the predecessor has to be assessed in respect of income of the previous year in wh…

Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1363/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…tate of Karnataka ILR 2004 Kar 2025 ii) CIT v. V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 57 iii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) iv) Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubrimaniam CIT (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom.). 6. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that as far as provisions of section 170(1) of the Act, if there is succession in the business of assessee, the predecessor has to be assessed in respect of income of the previous year in wh…

Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1362/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…tate of Karnataka ILR 2004 Kar 2025 ii) CIT v. V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 57 iii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) iv) Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubrimaniam CIT (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom.). 6. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that as far as provisions of section 170(1) of the Act, if there is succession in the business of assessee, the predecessor has to be assessed in respect of income of the previous year in wh…

Mohammed Mujeeb Ur Rahman, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Mohd. Mujeeb Ur Vs. Acit, Rahman, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(2) Pan:Aajpu8580G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/10/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27/06/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Taxing The Amount Of Rs.70.00 Lakhs Admitted As Additional Income In The Return Of Income By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…ITA No 357 of 2022 Mohd Mujeeb Ur Rahman आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Mohd. Mujeeb UR Vs. ACIT, Rahman, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(2) PAN:AAJPU8580G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA Revenue by: Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 23/08/2023 Date of pronouncement: 19/10/2023 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, Vice-President This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jagannathdas Harichandmal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Raigarh

In the result appeal of revenue is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 106/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.106/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Jagannathdas Harichandmal Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Sadar Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan: Aaccj2840G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, Dated 16.03.2022 Which In Turn Arises From The Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Dated 30.12.2018 For A.Y.2012-13. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, While Holding Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of Act As Invalid & Void-Ab-Initio, The Ld. Cit(A) Completely Ignored The Fact That During The Course Of Survey, The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Burden In Establishing 'The Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions As Required U/S 68 Of The Income Tac Act. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Reassessment Proceeding Are Based On Fresh Facts/Information Rather Than Change Of Opinion. 2. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Confirmation Of Concealment Of Income/Disclosure Made In Statement Recorded During Survey U/S 133A Of Act Is An Information, Though Not Conclusive, Which May Be Used In Regular Assessment Or Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ultimately, therefore, led to retraction. Statement taken even u/s.132(4) of the Act cannot be used as a conclusive evidence if it is not backed by credible evidences. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd Vs. 17 State of Kerala 91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that "an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect." Further in the case of Awad Kishore Dass AIR 1979 SC 861 has held that "it is true that the evidentiary admissions are not conclusive proof of the…

Pooja Bhatia, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Om Prakash Bhatia (individual)

ITA 6564/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 64

…h Bhatia vs. ACIT & Ors. of income and offering only Rs.16,38,200/- in the return. Reliance in this regard is placed on the celebrated decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- 4. There is material on record to show that in respect of the assessment year 1963-64, the year previous to the one with which we are concerned in this case, the Tribunal refused to refer similar questions which the assessee wanted it to refer to the High Court. But, at the instance of the assessee those question…

Om Prakash Bhatia & Sons, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Om Prakash Bhatia (individual)

ITA 6563/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 64

…h Bhatia vs. ACIT & Ors. of income and offering only Rs.16,38,200/- in the return. Reliance in this regard is placed on the celebrated decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- 4. There is material on record to show that in respect of the assessment year 1963-64, the year previous to the one with which we are concerned in this case, the Tribunal refused to refer similar questions which the assessee wanted it to refer to the High Court. But, at the instance of the assessee those question…

Shri Om Prakash Bhatia, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Om Prakash Bhatia (individual)

ITA 3270/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 64

…h Bhatia vs. ACIT & Ors. of income and offering only Rs.16,38,200/- in the return. Reliance in this regard is placed on the celebrated decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- 4. There is material on record to show that in respect of the assessment year 1963-64, the year previous to the one with which we are concerned in this case, the Tribunal refused to refer similar questions which the assessee wanted it to refer to the High Court. But, at the instance of the assessee those question…

Shri Om Prakash Bhatia, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Om Prakash Bhatia (individual)

ITA 3269/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 64

…h Bhatia vs. ACIT & Ors. of income and offering only Rs.16,38,200/- in the return. Reliance in this regard is placed on the celebrated decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- 4. There is material on record to show that in respect of the assessment year 1963-64, the year previous to the one with which we are concerned in this case, the Tribunal refused to refer similar questions which the assessee wanted it to refer to the High Court. But, at the instance of the assessee those question…

Sh Om Prakash Bhatia (HUF), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Om Prakash Bhatia (individual)

ITA 1556/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 64

…h Bhatia vs. ACIT & Ors. of income and offering only Rs.16,38,200/- in the return. Reliance in this regard is placed on the celebrated decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- 4. There is material on record to show that in respect of the assessment year 1963-64, the year previous to the one with which we are concerned in this case, the Tribunal refused to refer similar questions which the assessee wanted it to refer to the High Court. But, at the instance of the assessee those question…

Sh Om Prakash Bhatia (HUF), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Om Prakash Bhatia (individual)

ITA 1555/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 64

…h Bhatia vs. ACIT & Ors. of income and offering only Rs.16,38,200/- in the return. Reliance in this regard is placed on the celebrated decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- 4. There is material on record to show that in respect of the assessment year 1963-64, the year previous to the one with which we are concerned in this case, the Tribunal refused to refer similar questions which the assessee wanted it to refer to the High Court. But, at the instance of the assessee those question…

M/S. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 66/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to be quashed which is entirely based on the factually incorrect statement. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 38 of 85 6.46 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co., Ltd V. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) held that the admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, has held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. The statement is factually incorrect for the detailed reasons stated above and in the instant case sole reliance is placed on such factually incorrect statement. 6.47 The ld. A.R.…

M/S. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 65/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to be quashed which is entirely based on the factually incorrect statement. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 38 of 85 6.46 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co., Ltd V. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) held that the admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, has held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. The statement is factually incorrect for the detailed reasons stated above and in the instant case sole reliance is placed on such factually incorrect statement. 6.47 The ld. A.R.…

M/S. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 64/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to be quashed which is entirely based on the factually incorrect statement. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 38 of 85 6.46 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co., Ltd V. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) held that the admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, has held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. The statement is factually incorrect for the detailed reasons stated above and in the instant case sole reliance is placed on such factually incorrect statement. 6.47 The ld. A.R.…

M/S. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 63/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to be quashed which is entirely based on the factually incorrect statement. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 38 of 85 6.46 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co., Ltd V. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) held that the admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, has held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. The statement is factually incorrect for the detailed reasons stated above and in the instant case sole reliance is placed on such factually incorrect statement. 6.47 The ld. A.R.…

M/S. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 62/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to be quashed which is entirely based on the factually incorrect statement. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 38 of 85 6.46 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co., Ltd V. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) held that the admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, has held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. The statement is factually incorrect for the detailed reasons stated above and in the instant case sole reliance is placed on such factually incorrect statement. 6.47 The ld. A.R.…

DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. Shri B. Baskar Reddy, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 988/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 988/Chny/2022 & Co No: 02/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Shri. B Bhaskar Reddy, Income Tax, V. H.No. 8-2-293/82/A/854C, Road Central Circle -3(1), No. 44, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Chennai. [Pan: Acxpb-3805-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Respondent/Cross Objector By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri. I. Dinesh, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 698

…plements it. The CBDT has very clearly emphasized the need to focus on gathering evidences during the course of search/survey, rather than obtaining admission. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd vs State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC), held that although admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. The sum and substance of ratio laid down by various courts including the Hon’ble Apex Court and also emphasis of CBDT is that admission in a statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act, cannot be taken as conclusive evidences unless sai…