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 366,005 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

Sunil Ghanshyamdas Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle- 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5275/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusheth

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…pellant had furnished its restated capital account balances during assessment proceedings and therefore, both the lower authorities erred in ignoring the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd vs. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 [SC], wherein, the Apex Court held that it is open to the assessee, who made an erroneous admission earlier to show that it is incorrect and the assessee should be given proper opportunity to do so. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ignored the fact that the appellant…

Naresh Arora, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3144/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumararti Garg, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A – 19, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Akupg4398A) Naresh Arora, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A-061, 6Th Floor, Spaze Privy, Delhi. Sector 72, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aacpa3657P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Shri Vaibhav Srivastava, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 65BSection 69Section 69C

…Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC); (xi) Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC); (xii) CIT v. Anil Khandelwal [ITA Nos.247 & 248/2012 decided 21.04.2015]; (xiii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC); (xiv) Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.); (xv) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC); (xvi) Pushkar Narain Sarraj v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 388 (All.); (xvii) P.R. Metrani v. CIT, Bangalore (2006) 157 taxman 325 (SC); (xviii) CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC); (xix) CIT v. Kanpur Coat Syndicate…

Arit Garg, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3143/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumararti Garg, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A – 19, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Akupg4398A) Naresh Arora, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A-061, 6Th Floor, Spaze Privy, Delhi. Sector 72, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aacpa3657P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Shri Vaibhav Srivastava, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 65BSection 69Section 69C

…Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC); (xi) Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC); (xii) CIT v. Anil Khandelwal [ITA Nos.247 & 248/2012 decided 21.04.2015]; (xiii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC); (xiv) Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.); (xv) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC); (xvi) Pushkar Narain Sarraj v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 388 (All.); (xvii) P.R. Metrani v. CIT, Bangalore (2006) 157 taxman 325 (SC); (xviii) CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC); (xix) CIT v. Kanpur Coat Syndicate…

S Chandra Prakash, Chennai vs. ITO, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2815/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2815/Chny/2025 & Sa No.105/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22 S.Chandra Prakash, No.13/5, Vritti Apartment, 2A, Ormes Road, 3Rd Cross Street, Kilpauk S.O, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. Ito, Vs. Central Circle – 3(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaapc-4541-Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Ам: This Appeal & Stay Application Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Chennai - 20 (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 08.08.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Against The Order Passed By The Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai, U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dated 30.12.2022. :-2-:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 69

…e absence of any enquiry and affirmation, the confession cannot be taken as the sole basis for making the addition and reliance placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 get enforced. Further, this statement cannot be categorized to be a deposition that possesses evidentiary value, when the same is proven to be obtained by way of threat and coercion. The CBDT has :-30-: ITA. No:2815/Chny/2025 & SA No.105//Chny/2025 issued instructions to curb the practice of obtaining forced confessions during search and seizure op…

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

…lable with him or brought on record after making independent enquiry or investigation to support the allegation that the assessee has received INR 5 Lakhs. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC) 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…

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1654/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

…lable with him or brought on record after making independent enquiry or investigation to support the allegation that the assessee has received INR 5 Lakhs. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC) 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…

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1653/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

…lable with him or brought on record after making independent enquiry or investigation to support the allegation that the assessee has received INR 5 Lakhs. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC) 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…

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1650/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

…lable with him or brought on record after making independent enquiry or investigation to support the allegation that the assessee has received INR 5 Lakhs. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC) 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…

ACIT-Circle-2(1)(1), Agra vs. Puneet Agarwal, Agra

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 338/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

…ber of case laws and proved beyond any iota of doubt that the admission through important evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the person, who made the admission to show that it is incorrect as per case of Apex Court reported in 91 ITR 18. 39. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that the revenue had raised several issues in these grounds. The first issue is, Ld CIT(A) had considered the assessment completed u/s 143(3) is bad in law and held that the AO should have initiated the proceedings u/s 153C considering the fact that the search proceedi…

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra vs. Sh. Vishwambhar Dayal Agarwal, Agra

ITA 337/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

…dences in support of the facts so claimed by him. n). Similarly, number of case laws have been discussed at page 207 onwards and particularly, the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala &Anr, reported in 9 ITR 18. In which, it has been held as under:- 22 ITA No.337, 330, 336 & 338 &/Agr/2025 CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025 "An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect." o). Similarly, we rely upon on number of judgments as discuss…

ACIT-Circel-2(1)(1), Agra vs. Mayank Agrawal, Agra

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 336/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

…ber of case laws and proved beyond any iota of doubt that the admission through important evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the person, who made the admission to show that it is incorrect as per case of Apex Court reported in 91 ITR 18. 39. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that the revenue had raised several issues in these grounds. The first issue is, Ld CIT(A) had considered the assessment completed u/s 143(3) is bad in law and held that the AO should have initiated the proceedings u/s 153C considering the fact that the search proceedi…

Vishwambhar Dayal Agarwal, Agra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle2(1)(1), Agra

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 330/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

…ber of case laws and proved beyond any iota of doubt that the admission through important evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the person, who made the admission to show that it is incorrect as per case of Apex Court reported in 91 ITR 18. 39. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that the revenue had raised several issues in these grounds. The first issue is, Ld CIT(A) had considered the assessment completed u/s 143(3) is bad in law and held that the AO should have initiated the proceedings u/s 153C considering the fact that the search proceedi…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sri Balaji Educational Amd Trust Charitable Public Trust, Chenna

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and that of the Department are dismissed

ITA 1471/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1249/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Acit, Charitable Public Trust, Vs. Central Circle 3(4), No. 60, First Avenue, Chennai. Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (&'थ"/Respondent) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1471/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Central Circle 3(4), Vs. Charitable Public Trust, Chennai. No. 60, First Avenue, Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (&'थ"/Respondent) िनधा$)रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, Fca राज4 की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 250

…sence of any enquiry and affirmation, the confession cannot be taken as the sole basis for making the addition and reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18. On careful examination of the contents of the assessment order, it can be verified that the addition to total income solely relies on the confession at the time of search and no further enquiry has been conducted to confirm the determination of income by the AO for the A.Y.2017-18. The ld.CIT(A) has not deviated from this principle of determinatio…

M/S. Sri Balaji Educational and Charitable Public Trust, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and that of the Department are dismissed

ITA 1249/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1249/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Acit, Charitable Public Trust, Vs. Central Circle 3(4), No. 60, First Avenue, Chennai. Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (&'थ"/Respondent) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1471/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Central Circle 3(4), Vs. Charitable Public Trust, Chennai. No. 60, First Avenue, Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (&'थ"/Respondent) िनधा$)रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, Fca राज4 की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 250

…sence of any enquiry and affirmation, the confession cannot be taken as the sole basis for making the addition and reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18. On careful examination of the contents of the assessment order, it can be verified that the addition to total income solely relies on the confession at the time of search and no further enquiry has been conducted to confirm the determination of income by the AO for the A.Y.2017-18. The ld.CIT(A) has not deviated from this principle of determinatio…

Chokkanahalli Gundappa Chandrappa, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 311/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep C., A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Balusamy, D.R
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250

…value obviously for the reason that the Officer cannot administer any oath and to take any sworn statement which alone has an evidentiary value as contemplated in law. The Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. V. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC), held that an admission is extremely an important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. Further, Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) observed as follows- “A power to examine a person…

Chokkanahalli Gundappa Chandrappa, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 310/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep C., A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Balusamy, D.R
Section 133ASection 250Section 37

…value obviously for the reason that the Officer cannot administer any oath and to take any sworn statement which alone has an evidentiary value as contemplated in law. The Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. V. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC), held that an admission is extremely an important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) observed as follows- “A power to examine a person…

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 26/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2018-19 M/s. Barbeque-Nation Hospitality Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Saket Callipolis, Unit No. 601 & 602, 6th Floor, Doddakannalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Sarjapur Road, Bengaluru – 560035. PAN : AAKCS3053N APPELLANT Circle - 2(2), Bangalore. RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. Advocate Revenue by : Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 18.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 31.10.2025…

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 25/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2018-19 M/s. Barbeque-Nation Hospitality Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Saket Callipolis, Unit No. 601 & 602, 6th Floor, Doddakannalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Sarjapur Road, Bengaluru – 560035. PAN : AAKCS3053N APPELLANT Assessee by Circle - 2(2), Bangalore. RESPONDENT : Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. Advocate Revenue by : Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 18.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 31.10.2025 O…

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 24/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2018-19 M/s. Barbeque-Nation Hospitality Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Saket Callipolis, Unit No. 601 & 602, Circle – 2(2), 6th Floor, Doddakannalli Village, Bangalore. Varthur Hobli, Sarjapur Road, Bengaluru – 560035. PAN : AAKCS3053N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. Advocate Revenue by : Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 18.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O…

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 23/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2018-19 M/s. Barbeque-Nation Hospitality Ltd., Saket Callipolis, Unit No. 601 & 602, 6th Floor, Doddakannalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Sarjapur Road, Bengaluru – 560035. PAN : AAKCS3053N Vs. APPELLANT DCIT, Circle - 2(2), Bangalore. RESPONDENT Assessee by Revenue by Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. Advocate Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing Date of Pronouncement 18.09.2025 31.10.2025 Per B…