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.

The ACIT Cen Cir-13, Mumbai vs. Shri Suresh V. Jain, Mumbai

Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5091/MUM/2007[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5091/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri L. K. S. DehiyaFor Respondent: ShriRajiv Khandelwal

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5091/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Shri Suresh V. Jain, DCIT CC -13, C/o- Chandan Parmar& Old CGO Building, M. K. बिधम/ Co. Office No. 1, 3rd floor, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Chaman Chambers, Vs. Cinema Lane, Near Metro Cinema, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAUPJ3284B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : And आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4198/Mum/2007 & Cross Objection No. 261/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) DCIT CC -13, Sh…

Shreeji Transport Services P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1353/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीलीय ुंख्या/ Ita No.1353/Mum/2014 (यििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2006-07) Shreeji Transport Services P. Ltd The Dy. Commissioner Of Plot No. 107, Section 19-C, Income Tax Circle 10(2), Vs. Shreeji Krupa Phase-Ii, Vashi, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Navi Mumbai-400 705 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaecs3602B आयकर अपीलीय ुंख्या/ Ita No. 2195/Mum/2011 (यििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2006-07) Amplas Polmers Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of C/O. 108, Padmavati Tower, Income Tax, Circle 10(2) Balaji Nagar, Station Road, Room No. 432/474, Aayakar Vs. Bhayandar (West), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Thane 401101 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaca5330L अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Vipul Josh, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Pankaj Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05-09-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26-11-2018 आदेश / O R D E R महावीरससंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: These Two Appeals Of Two Different Assessee Are Arising Out Of The, Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-

For Appellant: Vipul Josh, ARFor Respondent: Pankaj Kumar, DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 19

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स ुंह, न्याययक दस्य एवुं श्री राजेश क मार, लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपीलीय ुंख्या/ ITA No.1353/Mum/2014 (यििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2006-07) Shreeji Transport Services P. Ltd The Dy. Commissioner of Plot No. 107, Section 19-C, Income Tax Circle 10(2), Vs. Shreeji Krupa Phase-II, Vashi, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Navi Mumbai-400 705 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. AAECS3602B आयकर अपीलीय ुंख्या/ ITA No. 2195/…

Amplas Polmers P. Ltd, Thane vs. DCIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2195/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीलीय ुंख्या/ Ita No.1353/Mum/2014 (यििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2006-07) Shreeji Transport Services P. Ltd The Dy. Commissioner Of Plot No. 107, Section 19-C, Income Tax Circle 10(2), Vs. Shreeji Krupa Phase-Ii, Vashi, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Navi Mumbai-400 705 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaecs3602B आयकर अपीलीय ुंख्या/ Ita No. 2195/Mum/2011 (यििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2006-07) Amplas Polmers Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of C/O. 108, Padmavati Tower, Income Tax, Circle 10(2) Balaji Nagar, Station Road, Room No. 432/474, Aayakar Vs. Bhayandar (West), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Thane 401101 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaca5330L अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Vipul Josh, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Pankaj Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05-09-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26-11-2018 आदेश / O R D E R महावीरससंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: These Two Appeals Of Two Different Assessee Are Arising Out Of The, Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-

For Appellant: Vipul Josh, ARFor Respondent: Pankaj Kumar, DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 19

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स ुंह, न्याययक दस्य एवुं श्री राजेश क मार, लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपीलीय ुंख्या/ ITA No.1353/Mum/2014 (यििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2006-07) Shreeji Transport Services P. Ltd The Dy. Commissioner of Plot No. 107, Section 19-C, Income Tax Circle 10(2), Vs. Shreeji Krupa Phase-II, Vashi, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Navi Mumbai-400 705 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. AAECS3602B आयकर अपीलीय ुंख्या/ ITA No. 2195/…

Shri Swati Atit Agarwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2605/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr.Rajeev K. Gubgotra, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…rizes a search officer to record a statement on oath. Such statement has evidentiary value. But where the assessee tries to retract from the same, he has to establish it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC), has pointed out that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, though it cannot be conclusive. In view of the above facts and position of law, the contentions of the assessee vide retraction that the statement of admission in the course of search was given under mental pressure and duress is rejected. 13. However, we find th…

Smt. Swati Atit Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2604/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr.Rajeev K. Gubgotra, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…rizes a search officer to record a statement on oath. Such statement has evidentiary value. But where the assessee tries to retract from the same, he has to establish it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC), has pointed out that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, though it cannot be conclusive. In view of the above facts and position of law, the contentions of the assessee vide retraction that the statement of admission in the course of search was given under mental pressure and duress is rejected. 13. However, we find th…

Mr. Ashok Bathla, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 799/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate &

Section 153ASection 234ASection 251(2)

…he addition confirmed merely based on admission without any tangible evidence is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd vs. State of Kerala and another reported in 91 ITR 18. 7. Without prejudice, the amount added is wrong and requires to be made as Nil or even in extreme case the amount added is highly excessive and needs to be substantially reduced on the facts of the case. 8. The assessing officer erred in making addition purely on suspicion and surmises and not based on any factual foundation and the CIT(A) further…

Mr. Ashok Bathla, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 793/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate &

Section 153ASection 234ASection 251(2)

…he addition confirmed merely based on admission without any tangible evidence is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd vs. State of Kerala and another reported in 91 ITR 18. 7. Without prejudice, the amount added is wrong and requires to be made as Nil or even in extreme case the amount added is highly excessive and needs to be substantially reduced on the facts of the case. 8. The assessing officer erred in making addition purely on suspicion and surmises and not based on any factual foundation and the CIT(A) further…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Wilson Eng. Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed being rendered as infructuous

ITA 2284/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2284/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri K. M. Roy, FCA

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.2284/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) DCIT, Circle- 1(2), Kolkata Vs. M/s Wilson Eng. Industries Pvt. Ltd. Block-7B, 7th Floor, Anju Chamber, 24, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACW 2689 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) C.O. No.03/Kol/2017 (Arising out of आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.2284/Kol/2016) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/s Wilson Eng. Industries Pvt. Vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(2), Kolkata Ltd. Block-7B, 7th Floor, Anju Chamber, 24, Park S…

Shri Bharatkumar Mahadevprasad Shah, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2272/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Srivastava, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. jain, Sr. D.R

Section 133A

…one of the partners of the assessee-firm that the disclosed income was assessable as lawful income of the assessee. On appeal to the Supreme Court:” 7 . A.Y. 2015-16 9. Apart from that in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18 wherein it is held such admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is a conclusive: ”Entries made by the assessee in the account books treating a portion of the general expenditure as expenses towards immature plants and capitalising such portion amount to an admission that the amount in question was laid o…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. Harish Bagla, Kolkata

In the result, the I.T. Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2303/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) I.T.A. No. 2302/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & I.T.A. No. 2303/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-2(1), Kolkata…………….................………..…….......Appellant Vs. Harish Bagla…………………………......................................................................................…………Respondent Jaisalmer Building 6, Ashoka Road Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Abppb 7430 D] Appearances By: Shri D.S. Damle, Fca & Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 8Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A

…egorical finding that only a statement recorded during search cannot be the basis of any addition without bringing corroborative evidence on record and finally the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd vs State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 noted that an admission is 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. In the present case I find that apart from the statement recorded at the time of search, no piece of corroborative evidence was either found during the search nor bro…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. Harish Bagla, Kolkata

In the result, the I.T. Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2302/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) I.T.A. No. 2302/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & I.T.A. No. 2303/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-2(1), Kolkata…………….................………..…….......Appellant Vs. Harish Bagla…………………………......................................................................................…………Respondent Jaisalmer Building 6, Ashoka Road Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Abppb 7430 D] Appearances By: Shri D.S. Damle, Fca & Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 8Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A

…egorical finding that only a statement recorded during search cannot be the basis of any addition without bringing corroborative evidence on record and finally the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd vs State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 noted that an admission is 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. In the present case I find that apart from the statement recorded at the time of search, no piece of corroborative evidence was either found during the search nor bro…

Shri Gordhanlal Vani (Deceased), Ratlam vs. ACIT, Ratlam

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

ITA 492/IND/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Babulal Vani Acit Prop. M/S. Babulal Ramlal Ratlam बनाम/ Vani Vs. 50, Laxmiganj, Jobat, Dist. Jhabua (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aazpv7706M Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Gordhanlal Vani Acit (Deceased) Ratlam बनाम/ Prop. M/S. Gordhanlal Vs. Ramlal Vani (Through Son & Legal Heir Shri Yogendra Vani) 50, Laxmiganj, Jobat, Dist. Jhabha (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aazpv7706M

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…he Hon'ble High Court of Madras rendered in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pillangode Rubber Produce Co. Vs. State of Kerala and another (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC). Therefore, he submitted that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) of Rs.26,80,998/- may please be deleted. 4. On the contrary, Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. Ld. D.R. vehemently argued that the assessee cannot go back from his statement. The assessee had sufficient opportunity du…

Shri Babulal Vani, Jhabua vs. ACIT, Ratlam

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

ITA 491/IND/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Babulal Vani Acit Prop. M/S. Babulal Ramlal Ratlam बनाम/ Vani Vs. 50, Laxmiganj, Jobat, Dist. Jhabua (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aazpv7706M Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Gordhanlal Vani Acit (Deceased) Ratlam बनाम/ Prop. M/S. Gordhanlal Vs. Ramlal Vani (Through Son & Legal Heir Shri Yogendra Vani) 50, Laxmiganj, Jobat, Dist. Jhabha (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aazpv7706M

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…he Hon'ble High Court of Madras rendered in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pillangode Rubber Produce Co. Vs. State of Kerala and another (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC). Therefore, he submitted that the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) of Rs.26,80,998/- may please be deleted. 4. On the contrary, Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. Ld. D.R. vehemently argued that the assessee cannot go back from his statement. The assessee had sufficient opportunity du…

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 709/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 11Section 11(2)(b)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132(4)

…73 agreed for reduction of amount from the amount of application of income and did not agree for addition to total income. (d) The LdA.R submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of PullangodeRubber Produce Co. Vs. State of Kerala (1973)(91 ITR 18) has held as under:- “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.” He submitted that the assessee has demonstrated that the surrender of Rs.25.00 crores made by the assessee is based on wrong appreciation of facts…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Marathon Fiscal Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5783/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhandeputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Marathan Fiscal Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-6(3), Marathan House, Room No. 1926, 19Th Floor, Lala Devi Dayal Road, Air India Building, Vs. Mulund (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400080 Mumbai – 400021

For Appellant: Shri Manjunath Swami &For Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.R

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…said that it is conclusive and it is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Product Company Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18 (SC). Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs. Naresh K. Aggarwal (2014) 369 ITR 171 (AP). In the said case, it was observed by the Hon‟ble High Court that a statement recorded under sub-section (4) of Sec.132 shall be treated as a piece of evidence in the proceedings under the Act, as l…

Shri. K. Somasekhar, Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 988/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri K. Somasekhar, The Deputy “Dwaraka Mayee”, Commissioner Of Joladarashi Guda, Income Tax, Vs. Vivekananda Nagar, Central Circle – 1 Hospet. (1), Pan: Alups3545F Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prashanth G.S, Ca : Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel Revenue By & Shri Dilip, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, CA

Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153A

…ain argument that the addition was made merely on the basis of statement which is not justified. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and another as reported in 91 ITR 18 Page 4 of 13 and in particular, our attention was drawn to para no. 4 of this judgment. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Digambar Kumar Jain (HUF) as reported in 84 DTR 365, copy available on pages 3 to 5 of case law paper book and in particular, our attention was drawn to…

M/S. Computer Force, Daman vs. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3140/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3140/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Computer Force, V. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 376/2(14) Zari Causeway Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. Road, Opp. Grounds Of Appeal State Co-Op, Bank Kachigam, Daman - 396 193. [Pan: Aacfc 6893 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri R. P. Rastogi, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 19.07.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of 27.08.2019 Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per O. P. Meena, Am 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Valsad (In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 10.10.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06 Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs.9,16,971/- Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Income Tax Act,1961 (In Shot Of The Act)By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vapi Circle –Vapi (The Ao).

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Sons (2008) 300 ITR 157(Mad) affirmed by Hon`ble Page 3 of 6 Computer Force, Daman v. ACIT-Vapi/I.T.A. No. 3140/AHD/2014/A.Y.05-06 Supreme Court in 214 CTR 589 (Mad) and Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18 (SC) and CBDT Instruction 286/2/2003-IT(Inv). However, CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty by observing that the assessee could not establish the expenditure incurred for renovation. Merely relying on statement, which according to the assessee has no evidentiary value is not suffice. The real facts involved cannot be ignored. Accordingly, the CIT (A)…

R.Jayakumar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Trichy

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

ITA 1131/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…tion and the ITA No.1131 /2013 :- 6 -: addition can also retracted, placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nagubai Ammal vs. B. Shama Rao AIR, 1956 (SC) 593 and Rubber Produce Company Limited vs. State of Kerala, (1973) 91 ITR 18, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that sworn statement should be considered in its entirety. Having accepted the sworn statement for the purpose of making addition of "45,00,000/-, he ought to have accepted the explanation given in respect of cash of "25,00,000/- also. As regards to the addition on account of unexplained jewellery, the l…

Sanjay Dangi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 22 & 30, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6908/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Dangi, Deputy Commissioner Of 61, 6Th Floor, Twinstar Venus Co., Income Tax, Vs. Op.Hsg.Soc. Ltd., Cuffee Parade, Central Circle-22 & 30, Colaba, Mumbai Mumbai [Pan : Ahspd6986H]

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…89 (Madras); 4. Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy Vs. P. Balasubramanian (2013) 354 ITR 116 (Madras); 5. Paul Mathew & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 129 Taxmann 416 (Kerala); 6. Pullangode Rubber Products Co Limited Vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18; 7. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samar Kumar Sen (Kolkatta Tribunal) (ITA No.952/Kol/2013) Jul 2016; 8. P R Metrani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore – Supreme Court of India 157 Taxmann 325; 9. M Narayanan & Bros Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Special Investigation Circle Salem – 13 Taxmann.com 49; : 6 : 5.1. Fin…

M.S, Ultimate Builders, Bhopal vs. The ACIT-2, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 134/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 M/S. Ultimate Builders, Acit, Central-Ii, G-1, Kamdhenu Tower, E- Vs. Bhopal 2/22, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aacfu8239M

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 17

…nt incidents mentioned in the confession". In the instant case the confession was correlated to the material found during the course of Survey. 8 Ultimate Builders c) 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 from 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…

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

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

The ACIT Cen Cir-13, Mumbai vs. Shri Suresh V. Jain, Mumbai

Shreeji Transport Services P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2), Mumbai

Amplas Polmers P. Ltd, Thane vs. DCIT 10(2), Mumbai

Shri Swati Atit Agarwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

Smt. Swati Atit Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai

Mr. Ashok Bathla, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

Mr. Ashok Bathla, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

D.C.I.T., Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Wilson Eng. Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Shri Bharatkumar Mahadevprasad Shah, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(3), Ahmedabad

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. Harish Bagla, Kolkata

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. Harish Bagla, Kolkata

Shri Gordhanlal Vani (Deceased), Ratlam vs. ACIT, Ratlam

Shri Babulal Vani, Jhabua vs. ACIT, Ratlam

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Marathon Fiscal Private Limited, Mumbai

Shri. K. Somasekhar, Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

M/S. Computer Force, Daman vs. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

R.Jayakumar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Trichy

Sanjay Dangi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 22 & 30, Mumbai

M.S, Ultimate Builders, Bhopal vs. The ACIT-2, Bhopal