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.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132(4), Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 147, Section 68.

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18)

Q: How many judgments cite Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala?

666 judgments on BharatTax cite Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Mongia Steel Limited, Giridih vs. ACIT, Dhanbad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 112/RAN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 132(1)Section 144

…ation on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed AY: 2010-11 M/s Mongia Steel Ltd.(Formerly Mongia Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd.) before the IT department. It has been decided in the case of Pullangode Rubber produce co. Ltd. Vs State of Kerla 1973 91 ITR 18(SC) by Hon’b/e Supreme Court 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 addition to show that it is incorrect. In the case of Nagubai Armal Vs. B Sharma’ Rao AIR 1956 SC ,100 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court held it has also laid down that an a…

DCIT, Dhanbad vs. M/S Mongia Hi-Tech (P) Ltd, Giridih

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 101/RAN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 132(1)Section 144

…ation on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed AY: 2010-11 M/s Mongia Steel Ltd.(Formerly Mongia Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd.) before the IT department. It has been decided in the case of Pullangode Rubber produce co. Ltd. Vs State of Kerla 1973 91 ITR 18(SC) by Hon’b/e Supreme Court 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 addition to show that it is incorrect. In the case of Nagubai Armal Vs. B Sharma’ Rao AIR 1956 SC ,100 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court held it has also laid down that an a…

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 134/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…g accounts of the 3 persons and concluded the declaration of offering the income at the time of search proceedings. The appellant has placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) observing that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. Reliance is also placed on the ruling of the Delhi High Court in the case of S. Arjun Singh v. CWT ( 175 ITR 91). 10.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant…

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 133/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…g accounts of the 3 persons and concluded the declaration of offering the income at the time of search proceedings. The appellant has placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) observing that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. Reliance is also placed on the ruling of the Delhi High Court in the case of S. Arjun Singh v. CWT ( 175 ITR 91). 10.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant…

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 132/BANG/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…g accounts of the 3 persons and concluded the declaration of offering the income at the time of search proceedings. The appellant has placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) observing that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. Reliance is also placed on the ruling of the Delhi High Court in the case of S. Arjun Singh v. CWT ( 175 ITR 91). 10.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant…

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/BANG/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…g accounts of the 3 persons and concluded the declaration of offering the income at the time of search proceedings. The appellant has placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) observing that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. Reliance is also placed on the ruling of the Delhi High Court in the case of S. Arjun Singh v. CWT ( 175 ITR 91). 10.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant…

Mr. Anil Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-51, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse vide

ITA 228/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.227 & 228/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2018-19 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69B

…settled position of law that the admission though important is not conclusive. It is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18. The onus falls on the person who had earlier admitted to prove it wrong. Therefore, the statements could form the basis of assessment. 63. The statements given to the Assessing officer undersection132 (4) have legal force. Unless the retractions are made within a short span of time, supported by affidavit swearing that the contents are incorrect a…

Mr. Anil Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-51, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse vide

ITA 227/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.227 & 228/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2018-19 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69B

…settled position of law that the admission though important is not conclusive. It is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18. The onus falls on the person who had earlier admitted to prove it wrong. Therefore, the statements could form the basis of assessment. 63. The statements given to the Assessing officer undersection132 (4) have legal force. Unless the retractions are made within a short span of time, supported by affidavit swearing that the contents are incorrect a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Psa Construction, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 145/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250(4)Section 253

…t be sacrosanct or decisive: It is open for the person who gave the statement to prove that the statement was incorrect or otherwise unreliable. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncement: Title Citation Authority S. No. CLC Referen< 1. (1973) 91 ITR 18 Hon’ble Page 12 Supreme Court Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 2. Page 1; ITO vs. Vijay Kumar (2010) 327 ITR High Court of Kesar 497 Chhattisgarh 8. Statement of the assessee was not voluntary: Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncement: Title Citation Authority s. No. CLC Reference 1. (2008) 76 CCH High Court…

Shashi Bhushan Sinha, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circl-3, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 13/PAT/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 131Section 153A

…. The assessee has been covered under the search and in a post enquiry of the search, this statement was taken. He also made reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Limited –vs.- State of Kerala [91 ITR 18 (SC), decision of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Ravindra Kumar Jain (12 taxmann.com 257), decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Choksi –vs.- CIT (174 taxmann 466) etc. According to whom, the unanimous approach of the Hon’ble High Courts in all these decisions is that corroboration of reco…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Rohit Jain, Shillong

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 339/GTY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati05 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 250

…uring the course of the assessment proceedings. It is well settled that retraction from admission is permissible in law and it is open to the person who made this admission to show it was incorrect [PULLAGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. -VS-STATE OF KERELA (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC)]. In the present context it was explained that the entire sum of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- disclosed is already disclosed in his hands as well as his family members din the regular manner and as such, no allegation of undisclosed nature is attached to it. It was categorically mentioned page by page of the impounded material marked CML/SHC/02, CML/SHC/…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Rohit Jain, Shillong

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 338/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati05 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 250

…uring the course of the assessment proceedings. It is well settled that retraction from admission is permissible in law and it is open to the person who made this admission to show it was incorrect [PULLAGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. -VS-STATE OF KERELA (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC)]. In the present context it was explained that the entire sum of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- disclosed is already disclosed in his hands as well as his family members din the regular manner and as such, no allegation of undisclosed nature is attached to it. It was categorically mentioned page by page of the impounded material marked CML/SHC/02, CML/SHC/…

DCIT, Allahabad vs. M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue ITA No

ITA 216/ALLD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.199/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Acit-Circle-1, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. (Respondent) [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-Circle-1, Vs. M/S Mahesh Chandra Allahabad. Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.34/Alld/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Dcit-Circle-3, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By None. Respondent By Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)

…there was additional income as sought to be assessed and that there was no material to support that there was such income, this contention in our view is not correct. As held by the Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of assessment. The mere fact that the assessee retracted the statement could not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in th…

M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad vs. Acct, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue ITA No

ITA 199/ALLD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.199/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Acit-Circle-1, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. (Respondent) [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-Circle-1, Vs. M/S Mahesh Chandra Allahabad. Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.34/Alld/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Dcit-Circle-3, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By None. Respondent By Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)

…there was additional income as sought to be assessed and that there was no material to support that there was such income, this contention in our view is not correct. As held by the Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of assessment. The mere fact that the assessee retracted the statement could not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in th…

Shri Kenche Kumar, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 46/BANG/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Kenche Kumar, The Assistant Door No. 847, 21St Ward, Commissioner Of Bellary Road, Income Tax, Opp. Lucky Tyres, Hospet, Vs. Central Circle – Bellary – 583 201. 2(1), Pan: Avspk7166L Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…sdiction unless the law holds otherwise. The Appellant wishes to place reliance on the following judicial precedents where it has been held that mere consent cannot confer jurisdiction. a. CIT Vs MRP Firm 56 ITR 67 (SC) b. Pullongode Rubber Vs State of Kerala 91 ITR 18 c. S.R Kosti Vs CIT 276 ITR 165 d. Nirmala L Mehta Vs CIT 269 ITR 1 e. Bhandari Metal & alloys Vs State of Karnataka 136 STC 292 The Appellant further submits that the learned Assessing Officer without appreciating the details as furnished during the course of assessment proceeding and further without appreciating the nature of the business of the…

Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 983/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

…roper opportunity to show that the books of accounts did not correct disclose the correct state of facts. The principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC). 3.3 In this factual background, if we examine the facts of present case, one has to see whether addition made by AO towards unaccounted cash receipts received from various persons as recorded in seized document, which is being a scribbling pad. Admittedly, incriminating material found during the course of search does not bare the signature o…

Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 982/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

…roper opportunity to show that the books of accounts did not correct disclose the correct state of facts. The principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC). 3.3 In this factual background, if we examine the facts of present case, one has to see whether addition made by AO towards unaccounted cash receipts received from various persons as recorded in seized document, which is being a scribbling pad. Admittedly, incriminating material found during the course of search does not bare the signature o…

Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 981/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

…roper opportunity to show that the books of accounts did not correct disclose the correct state of facts. The principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC). 3.3 In this factual background, if we examine the facts of present case, one has to see whether addition made by AO towards unaccounted cash receipts received from various persons as recorded in seized document, which is being a scribbling pad. Admittedly, incriminating material found during the course of search does not bare the signature o…

Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 980/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

…roper opportunity to show that the books of accounts did not correct disclose the correct state of facts. The principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC). 3.3 In this factual background, if we examine the facts of present case, one has to see whether addition made by AO towards unaccounted cash receipts received from various persons as recorded in seized document, which is being a scribbling pad. Admittedly, incriminating material found during the course of search does not bare the signature o…

Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 979/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

…roper opportunity to show that the books of accounts did not correct disclose the correct state of facts. The principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC). 3.3 In this factual background, if we examine the facts of present case, one has to see whether addition made by AO towards unaccounted cash receipts received from various persons as recorded in seized document, which is being a scribbling pad. Admittedly, incriminating material found during the course of search does not bare the signature o…

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

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

Mongia Steel Limited, Giridih vs. ACIT, Dhanbad

DCIT, Dhanbad vs. M/S Mongia Hi-Tech (P) Ltd, Giridih

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

Mr. Anil Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-51, Mumbai

Mr. Anil Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-51, Mumbai

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Psa Construction, Raipur

Shashi Bhushan Sinha, Patna vs. ACIT, Central Circl-3, Patna

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Rohit Jain, Shillong

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Rohit Jain, Shillong

DCIT, Allahabad vs. M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad

M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad vs. Acct, Allahabad

Shri Kenche Kumar, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(1), Bangalore

Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru

Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Mangaluru