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.

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1792/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…e of facts, vide decision of the 22 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other group concerns apex court in Pulkngode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18; (ii) In contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables the authorised officer to examine a person on oath and any statement made by such person during such examination can also be used in evidence under the Income-tax Act. On the other hand, whatever statement is recorded under section 133A of the I…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1791/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…e of facts, vide decision of the 22 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other group concerns apex court in Pulkngode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18; (ii) In contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables the authorised officer to examine a person on oath and any statement made by such person during such examination can also be used in evidence under the Income-tax Act. On the other hand, whatever statement is recorded under section 133A of the I…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1790/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…e of facts, vide decision of the 22 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other group concerns apex court in Pulkngode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18; (ii) In contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables the authorised officer to examine a person on oath and any statement made by such person during such examination can also be used in evidence under the Income-tax Act. On the other hand, whatever statement is recorded under section 133A of the I…

Late Shri Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora, Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Surat

In the result, ground no.4 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1706/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1706/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora Through, Vs. The Acit, Circle-5, L/H. Rajat Bhimsen Arora, Surat. Smt. Mamta Bhimsen Arora, A-201, Madhulika Apartment, Bhatar Road, Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acaps9230L

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…t it is incorrect and that the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to show that the books of account do not correctly disclose the correct state of facts, vide decision of the apex court in Pulkngode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 ; (ii) In contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables the authorised officer to examine a person on oath and any statement made by such person during such examination can also be used in evidence under the Income-tax Act. On the other hand, whatever statement is recorded under section 133A of the…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Trident Chemphar Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 433/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Trident Chemphar Ltd. Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaeft8416H. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.01.2023

For Appellant: Shri B.G. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar – CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 195Section 40

…ards the admission of income by the director of the company, it is settled law that admission is an important piece of evidence but the same is not conclusive as held by the Supreme Court in Pullagonde Rubber Produce Company Limited vs State of Kerala (1973) (91 ITR 18) (SC). However, the burden to prove that the statement was not correct is on the assessee. In CIT vs Shri Ramdas Motor Transport (1990) [102 taxmann 300 (AP)] the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that retraction of initial admission at the time of filing of return after due verification of books and details was acceptable. In other words,…

M/S. Kakda Steels Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhopal

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 916/IND/2019[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…boration of the important incidents mentioned in the confession". In the instant case the confession was correlated to the material found during the course of Survey. 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…

The ACIT Central -1, Bhopal vs. Shri Sunil Sahu, Raipur

ITA 355/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…in personal name. It is also stated that the case laws as relied by the A. O. are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The assessee has relied on the decision of 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 admission to show that it was incorrect. However, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Chandrakumar…

Sunil Sahu, Raipur vs. ACIT(Central)-2, Bhopal

ITA 158/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…in personal name. It is also stated that the case laws as relied by the A. O. are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The assessee has relied on the decision of 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 admission to show that it was incorrect. However, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Chandrakumar…

Sunil Sahu, Raipur vs. ACIT(Central)-2, Bhopal

ITA 157/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…in personal name. It is also stated that the case laws as relied by the A. O. are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The assessee has relied on the decision of 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 admission to show that it was incorrect. However, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Chandrakumar…

Sunil Sahu, Raipur vs. ACIT(Central)-2, Bhopal

ITA 156/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…in personal name. It is also stated that the case laws as relied by the A. O. are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The assessee has relied on the decision of 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 admission to show that it was incorrect. However, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Chandrakumar…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

…confer jurisdiction. The Assessee places reliance on the following decisions - Bhandari Metals v. State of Karnataka ILR 2004 i) Kar 2025 CIT v. V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) ii) 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.) S.R. Koshti v. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj.) v) ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 29 of 115 9. The Ld. D.R. submitted that notice u/s 153A of the Act has been issued on the reason that there was valid seized…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

…confer jurisdiction. The Assessee places reliance on the following decisions - Bhandari Metals v. State of Karnataka ILR 2004 i) Kar 2025 CIT v. V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) ii) 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.) S.R. Koshti v. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj.) v) ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 29 of 115 9. The Ld. D.R. submitted that notice u/s 153A of the Act has been issued on the reason that there was valid seized…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

…confer jurisdiction. The Assessee places reliance on the following decisions - Bhandari Metals v. State of Karnataka ILR 2004 i) Kar 2025 CIT v. V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) ii) 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.) S.R. Koshti v. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (Guj.) v) ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 29 of 115 9. The Ld. D.R. submitted that notice u/s 153A of the Act has been issued on the reason that there was valid seized…

Shrimati Nandini Sharma, Amritsar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

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

ITA 148/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, C.A. and Sh. V.S. AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69

…approach. The AR contended that the order passed by CIT(A) does not find any force as the same has been passed without taking into account the board circular. 13. The counsel relied upon the judgment of ‘Pullangode Rubber produce Co. Vs. State of Kerela’, [91 ITR 18] where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that though the admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it was open to a person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. The AR further placed reliance upon a number of case laws for the proposition that addition cannot be made on the…

ACIT CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Shreyas Vasant Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1580/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1580/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Vasant Parikh R. No.676B, 6Th Floor, 5 Raj Mayur, 19Th Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Khar (W), Mumbai- Road, Road, Mumbai- 400052. 400020. Cross Objection No. 30/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1580/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Shreyas Vasant Parikh Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ 5 Raj Mayur, 19Th Road, R. No.676B, 6Th Floor, Vs. Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepp1118J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. R. Choksi Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri V. R. ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni

Section 153CSection 68

…the shoulder of Revenue to prove that the statement was taken voluntarily and that it is relevant evidence. In this context, it is gainful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pullengole Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) wherein it has been held that although an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It was held that, it is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. The same view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. Stat…