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 366,369 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

M.Kiran Kumar, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3374/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA N.: 3374/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri M. Kiran Kumar, The ACIT, 123, Usman Road, T. Nagar, v. Corporate Circle 1(4), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. PAN: ACHPM2247E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri G.Baskar, Advocate : Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by Sr Standing Cou…

S.Suresh, Salem vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

ITA 942/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.942/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Mr. S.Suresh, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of 7/16, Nallarayanpatty, Ariyanoor, Income Tax, Veerapandy, Central Circle, Salem-636 308. Salem. Pan:Azzps 9875M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.M.Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: 17.12.2020
Section 132Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद!य एवं "ी जी.मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद!य के सम' BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.942/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Mr. S.Suresh, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of 7/16, Nallarayanpatty, Ariyanoor, Income Tax, Veerapandy, Central Circle, Salem-636 308. Salem. PAN:AZZPS 9875M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. G.Baskar, Advocate अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr.M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT ""यथ"क"ओरस…

Smt. Nisha Jain, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

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

ITA 1368/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Feb 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.C. ParwalFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (ACIT) a

…3,987/-, have been incurred entirely in cash, are only supported by internal vouchers, and not verifiable independently. 4.23.2 The assessee has relied on the order of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18. On perusal of the cited decision, it is seen that the Supreme Court has held that an admission is an extremely 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. Any statement recorded under section 133A would have evidentiary value only if suppo…

ACIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur vs. M/S. Vishnu Prakash R Pugalia, Jodhpur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Vishnu Prakash R Pugalia, Circle-1, P. No. 22, Subhash Colony, New Jodhpur. Pali Road, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aadfv 4672 J

…ed upon the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Sanjeev Kumar v. Income-tax officer, [2014] 50 taxmann.com 114 (Chandigarh - Trib.) (ii) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) (iii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC). (iv) Chawla Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 43 SOT 651 (Mum.) (v) Ramakrishnaiah vs. ITO [2010] 39 SOT 379 (HYD.) (vi) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs ACIT — [2005] 97 ITD 361 (AHD.) He has further submitted that from the evidence and documents submitted during the assessment proceedings it is established that the alleged unaccounted work re…

Mrc Transolutions Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 528/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 245CSection 35(1)(ii)

…rther, it was contended that the admission made is not conclusive and it can always open to an assessee to retract the such admission relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, 91 ITR 18 (SC). The appellant also sought the opportunity of cross-examination of the SHGPH, in case the Assessing Officer relied on the statement of the said organization and lastly it was submitted that the donation was made considering the Research activity carried on by the said organization. 4 6. On receipt of the said explanation, the Assessing Office…

Jinesh (HUF) vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

ITA/168/2012HC Karnataka22 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 68

…ed in not condoning the delay. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'SUSHIL KUMAR MEHTA VS. GOBIND RAM BOHRA (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS (1990) 1 SCC 193, 'PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD VS. STATE OF KERALA', (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC), 7 'CIT VS. MR.P.FIRM, MUAR', (1965) 56 ITR 67 9SC), 'BHANDARI METALS VS. SATE OF KARNATAKA', ILR 2004 KAR 2025, 'NIRMALA L. MEHTA VS. A.BALASUBRIMANIAM CIT', (2004) 269 ITR 1, 'S.R.KOSHTI VS. CIT', (2005) 276 ITR 165, 'CIT VS.SHOORJI VALLABHDAS AND CO.', (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC), 'CIT VS. CHAMANLAL MANGALDAS (1960) 39 ITR 8…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Gutnur vs. Arunachalam Manickvel, Gutnur

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

ITA 207/VIZ/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…(Special Range) wherein Hon’ble High courts have expressed 36 I.T.A. No.202/Viz/2020 to 207/Viz/2020, A.Y.2011-12 to 2016-17 Sri Arunachalam Manickavel the similar views. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd..v.State of Kerala, [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) 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 person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. In the instant case there was no evidence found in the premises of the assessee to show that the assessee is under invoicing the sales. No other material w…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Gutnur vs. Arunachalam Manickvel, Gutnur

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

ITA 206/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…(Special Range) wherein Hon’ble High courts have expressed 36 I.T.A. No.202/Viz/2020 to 207/Viz/2020, A.Y.2011-12 to 2016-17 Sri Arunachalam Manickavel the similar views. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd..v.State of Kerala, [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) 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 person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. In the instant case there was no evidence found in the premises of the assessee to show that the assessee is under invoicing the sales. No other material w…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Arunachalam Manickvel, Gutnur

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

ITA 205/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…(Special Range) wherein Hon’ble High courts have expressed 36 I.T.A. No.202/Viz/2020 to 207/Viz/2020, A.Y.2011-12 to 2016-17 Sri Arunachalam Manickavel the similar views. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd..v.State of Kerala, [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) 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 person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. In the instant case there was no evidence found in the premises of the assessee to show that the assessee is under invoicing the sales. No other material w…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Gutnur vs. Arunachalam Manickvel, Gutnur

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

ITA 204/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…(Special Range) wherein Hon’ble High courts have expressed 36 I.T.A. No.202/Viz/2020 to 207/Viz/2020, A.Y.2011-12 to 2016-17 Sri Arunachalam Manickavel the similar views. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd..v.State of Kerala, [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) 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 person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. In the instant case there was no evidence found in the premises of the assessee to show that the assessee is under invoicing the sales. No other material w…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Gutnur vs. Arunachalam Manickvel, Gutnur

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

ITA 203/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…(Special Range) wherein Hon’ble High courts have expressed 36 I.T.A. No.202/Viz/2020 to 207/Viz/2020, A.Y.2011-12 to 2016-17 Sri Arunachalam Manickavel the similar views. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd..v.State of Kerala, [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) 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 person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. In the instant case there was no evidence found in the premises of the assessee to show that the assessee is under invoicing the sales. No other material w…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Arunachalam Manickvel, Gutnur

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

ITA 202/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…(Special Range) wherein Hon’ble High courts have expressed 36 I.T.A. No.202/Viz/2020 to 207/Viz/2020, A.Y.2011-12 to 2016-17 Sri Arunachalam Manickavel the similar views. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd..v.State of Kerala, [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) 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 person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. In the instant case there was no evidence found in the premises of the assessee to show that the assessee is under invoicing the sales. No other material w…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Private Limited, Guntur

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

ITA 201/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ision of Hon’ble Madras High court in M.Narayanan & Bros v Assistant commissioner of Income tax (Special Range) wherein Hon’ble High courts have expressed the similar views. Hon’ble Supreme court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd..v.State of Kerala, [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) 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 person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. 9.7. In the instant case there was no evidence found in the premises of the assessee to show that the assessee is under invoicing the sales. No other mate…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Guntur vs. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Private Limited, Guntur

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

ITA 200/VIZ/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ision of Hon’ble Madras High court in M.Narayanan & Bros v Assistant commissioner of Income tax (Special Range) wherein Hon’ble High courts have expressed the similar views. Hon’ble Supreme court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd..v.State of Kerala, [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) 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 person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. 9.7. In the instant case there was no evidence found in the premises of the assessee to show that the assessee is under invoicing the sales. No other mate…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Guntur vs. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Private Limited, Guntur

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

ITA 199/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ision of Hon’ble Madras High court in M.Narayanan & Bros v Assistant commissioner of Income tax (Special Range) wherein Hon’ble High courts have expressed the similar views. Hon’ble Supreme court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd..v.State of Kerala, [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) 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 person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. 9.7. In the instant case there was no evidence found in the premises of the assessee to show that the assessee is under invoicing the sales. No other mate…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Guntur vs. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Private Limited, Guntur

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

ITA 198/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ision of Hon’ble Madras High court in M.Narayanan & Bros v Assistant commissioner of Income tax (Special Range) wherein Hon’ble High courts have expressed the similar views. Hon’ble Supreme court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd..v.State of Kerala, [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) 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 person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. 9.7. In the instant case there was no evidence found in the premises of the assessee to show that the assessee is under invoicing the sales. No other mate…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Private Limited, Guntur

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

ITA 197/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ision of Hon’ble Madras High court in M.Narayanan & Bros v Assistant commissioner of Income tax (Special Range) wherein Hon’ble High courts have expressed the similar views. Hon’ble Supreme court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd..v.State of Kerala, [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) 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 person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. 9.7. In the instant case there was no evidence found in the premises of the assessee to show that the assessee is under invoicing the sales. No other mate…

Income Tax Officer-20(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dhudhwala Real Estate and Investment, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s is allowed

ITA 4784/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 133A

…le Supreme Court for the proposition that without any corroborative evidence addition is not sustainable only on the basis of admission. • CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (254 CTR 228/210 Taxman 248) • Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18(SC) 9. Accordingly learned CIT(A) deleted the addition. Against the above order, the revenue is in appeal before us. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Learned counsel of the assessee stated that the addition is made solely on the basis of statement on survey. She reiterated that no corroborative evidence has been found a…

M/S Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1429/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)
Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

…ent and voluntary disclosure made thereof during survey operation / S&S Operation and treatment of subsequent retraction made after a gap of long duration and support the case of the department: • Pullangode Rubber Products Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 SC • Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sh Ravi Mathur (DB Income-tax appeal no 67/2002) & others • Dr. S. C. Gupta vs. CIT 248 ITR 782 (All) • S. S. Ratanchund Bholanath vs. CIT 210 ITR 682 (MP) • Hirasingh Co. Vs. CIT 330 ITR 791 (HP) • K. I. Pavunny vs. Asstt. CCWE 1997 (90 ELT 241) (SC) • Vinod Solanki vs. Union of India (SC) (Civ…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1236/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)
Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

…ent and voluntary disclosure made thereof during survey operation / S&S Operation and treatment of subsequent retraction made after a gap of long duration and support the case of the department: • Pullangode Rubber Products Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 SC • Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sh Ravi Mathur (DB Income-tax appeal no 67/2002) & others • Dr. S. C. Gupta vs. CIT 248 ITR 782 (All) • S. S. Ratanchund Bholanath vs. CIT 210 ITR 682 (MP) • Hirasingh Co. Vs. CIT 330 ITR 791 (HP) • K. I. Pavunny vs. Asstt. CCWE 1997 (90 ELT 241) (SC) • Vinod Solanki vs. Union of India (SC) (Civ…