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 366,470 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

ACIT, CC-4, Jaipur vs. Smt. Asha Jain, Jaipur

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 159/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

…Copy of dmat statement 88-93 Affidavit of Anil Agarwal, retracting statement given before. 94-99 17.2 Before proceedings further, It would not be out of place to discuss the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubbers Produces CO Ltd (91 ITR 18) as observed as under: "It is no doubt true that entries in the account books of the assessee amount to an admission that the amount in question was laid out or expended for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants from which no agricultural income was derived during the previous year. An admission is an extremely important piece o…

ACIT, CC-4, Jaipur vs. Smt. Sunita Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 156/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

…Copy of dmat statement 88-93 Affidavit of Anil Agarwal, retracting statement given before. 94-99 17.2 Before proceedings further, It would not be out of place to discuss the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubbers Produces CO Ltd (91 ITR 18) as observed as under: "It is no doubt true that entries in the account books of the assessee amount to an admission that the amount in question was laid out or expended for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants from which no agricultural income was derived during the previous year. An admission is an extremely important piece o…

ACIT, CC-4, Jaipur vs. Shri Mukut Behari Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 153/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

…Copy of dmat statement 88-93 Affidavit of Anil Agarwal, retracting statement given before. 94-99 17.2 Before proceedings further, It would not be out of place to discuss the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubbers Produces CO Ltd (91 ITR 18) as observed as under: "It is no doubt true that entries in the account books of the assessee amount to an admission that the amount in question was laid out or expended for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants from which no agricultural income was derived during the previous year. An admission is an extremely important piece o…

ACIT, CC-4, Jaipur vs. Shri Mukut Behari Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 152/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

…Copy of dmat statement 88-93 Affidavit of Anil Agarwal, retracting statement given before. 94-99 17.2 Before proceedings further, It would not be out of place to discuss the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubbers Produces CO Ltd (91 ITR 18) as observed as under: "It is no doubt true that entries in the account books of the assessee amount to an admission that the amount in question was laid out or expended for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants from which no agricultural income was derived during the previous year. An admission is an extremely important piece o…

Pujala Mahesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

…important piece of evidence but the same is not conclusive. 14. We find some force in the above argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. vs State Of Kerala And Anr., reported in 91 ITR 18 has held that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It has been held that it is open to the person who Page 8 of 82 ITA Nos 132 133 126 134 and 135 Puja Mahesh Babu Hyderabad made the admission to show that it is incorrect. We find the assessee in the instant case in the return of in…

Pujala Mahesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 134/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

…important piece of evidence but the same is not conclusive. 14. We find some force in the above argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. vs State Of Kerala And Anr., reported in 91 ITR 18 has held that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It has been held that it is open to the person who Page 8 of 82 ITA Nos 132 133 126 134 and 135 Puja Mahesh Babu Hyderabad made the admission to show that it is incorrect. We find the assessee in the instant case in the return of in…

Pujala Mahesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 133/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

…important piece of evidence but the same is not conclusive. 14. We find some force in the above argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. vs State Of Kerala And Anr., reported in 91 ITR 18 has held that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It has been held that it is open to the person who Page 8 of 82 ITA Nos 132 133 126 134 and 135 Puja Mahesh Babu Hyderabad made the admission to show that it is incorrect. We find the assessee in the instant case in the return of in…

Pujala Mahesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 132/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

…important piece of evidence but the same is not conclusive. 14. We find some force in the above argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. vs State Of Kerala And Anr., reported in 91 ITR 18 has held that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It has been held that it is open to the person who Page 8 of 82 ITA Nos 132 133 126 134 and 135 Puja Mahesh Babu Hyderabad made the admission to show that it is incorrect. We find the assessee in the instant case in the return of in…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Pujala Mahesh Babu, Ranga Reddy

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 126/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

…important piece of evidence but the same is not conclusive. 14. We find some force in the above argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. vs State Of Kerala And Anr., reported in 91 ITR 18 has held that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It has been held that it is open to the person who Page 8 of 82 ITA Nos 132 133 126 134 and 135 Puja Mahesh Babu Hyderabad made the admission to show that it is incorrect. We find the assessee in the instant case in the return of in…

Nadessan Sivapragasam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all three

ITA 113/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: 05.07.2022

…ent is sufficient to make additions, unless contrary evidence leads to take different view. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer to decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down proposition that an admission is extremely important piece of evidence, but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. In other words, admission is a piece of evidence, where said admission is supported by evidences which suggest undisclosed income earned from business. In absence of any corroborat…

Nadessan Sivapragasam, Chennai vs. ACIT Central 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all three

ITA 112/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: 05.07.2022

…ent is sufficient to make additions, unless contrary evidence leads to take different view. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer to decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down proposition that an admission is extremely important piece of evidence, but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. In other words, admission is a piece of evidence, where said admission is supported by evidences which suggest undisclosed income earned from business. In absence of any corroborat…

Nadessan Sivapragasam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all three

ITA 114/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: 05.07.2022

…ent is sufficient to make additions, unless contrary evidence leads to take different view. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer to decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down proposition that an admission is extremely important piece of evidence, but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. In other words, admission is a piece of evidence, where said admission is supported by evidences which suggest undisclosed income earned from business. In absence of any corroborat…

Sri.Dinakara Suvarna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the following:

ITA/16/2015HC Karnataka08 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 69B

…69B of the Act as unexplained investment. Shri. Chandrashekar argued that the addition has been made on the basis of the entries found in the diary seized during search of Shri. Chowta's 5 (1973)91 ITR 18(SCC) PARA 4 I.T.A No.16/2015 11 premises. The assessing officer came to the conclusion that assessee had paid cash over and above the amount shown in the registered document. 13. Shri. Ara…

DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1910/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 1352 to 1355 & 1910/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower, Central Circle-3(1) Room No. 1924, Veera Desai Road, Air India Building, Veera Industrial Estate, Vs. 19th Floor, Nariman, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACE 0319 D ITA Nos. 1465, 1466 to 1470/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2007-08, 2010-11 to 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower,…

Wind World India Limitead, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1470/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 1352 to 1355 & 1910/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower, Central Circle-3(1) Room No. 1924, Veera Desai Road, Air India Building, Veera Industrial Estate, Vs. 19th Floor, Nariman, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACE 0319 D ITA Nos. 1465, 1466 to 1470/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2007-08, 2010-11 to 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower,…

Wind World India Limitead, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1469/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 1352 to 1355 & 1910/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower, Central Circle-3(1) Room No. 1924, Veera Desai Road, Air India Building, Veera Industrial Estate, Vs. 19th Floor, Nariman, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACE 0319 D ITA Nos. 1465, 1466 to 1470/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2007-08, 2010-11 to 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower,…

Wind World India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1468/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 1352 to 1355 & 1910/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower, Central Circle-3(1) Room No. 1924, Veera Desai Road, Air India Building, Veera Industrial Estate, Vs. 19th Floor, Nariman, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACE 0319 D ITA Nos. 1465, 1466 to 1470/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2007-08, 2010-11 to 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower,…

Wind World India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1467/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 1352 to 1355 & 1910/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower, Central Circle-3(1) Room No. 1924, Veera Desai Road, Air India Building, Veera Industrial Estate, Vs. 19th Floor, Nariman, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACE 0319 D ITA Nos. 1465, 1466 to 1470/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2007-08, 2010-11 to 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower,…

Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1466/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 1352 to 1355 & 1910/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower, Central Circle-3(1) Room No. 1924, Veera Desai Road, Air India Building, Veera Industrial Estate, Vs. 19th Floor, Nariman, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACE 0319 D ITA Nos. 1465, 1466 to 1470/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2007-08, 2010-11 to 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower,…

Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1465/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 1352 to 1355 & 1910/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower, Central Circle-3(1) Room No. 1924, Veera Desai Road, Air India Building, Veera Industrial Estate, Vs. 19th Floor, Nariman, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACE 0319 D ITA Nos. 1465, 1466 to 1470/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2007-08, 2010-11 to 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower,…