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.

Shreejesulz Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 507/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prakhul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…the appellant is substantially covered, to the extent of excess stock is explained with plausible documents, by settled law on admission and retraction by ratios of following judgments in cases of: PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. V. STATE OF KERALA [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC): " C.I.T. V. BHANWARLAL 225 ITR 870 (RAJ): " KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI VS CIT (2008) 14 DTR 257 (GUJ.): 5.3.19 In view of above finding it is also held that, the inescapable conclusion to a great extent in the present case is that, the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act was not the only piece of evidence for making assessment u/s 153A…

St- Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6247/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Kapila, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92D

…ndra, 245 ITR 619; iv) Director of Inspection of Income-tax (Inv.) vs. Pooran Mall & Sons, 96 ITR 390 v) PV Doshi vs. CIT, 113 ITR 22 (Guj) vi) CIT vs. Continental Commercial Corp., 110 ITR 170 (Mad) vii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd vs. State of Kerala, 91 ITR 18 viii) CIT VS. Mahalaxmi Textile Mills, 66 ITR 710 (SC); ix) NTPC vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) x) Stream International Services (P) Ltd. vs. ADIT, ITA No.8997/Mum/2010 xi) GE BE (P) Ltd. (2014) 164 TTJ 40 (Bang.) xii) Navisite India Private Ltd. (ITA No.5329/Del/2012) xiii) Panasonic AVC Networks India Co. Ltd. (ITA No.4620/Del/2011); xiv) Verizon Indi…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3455/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M

Section 143(3)Section 148

…kau Wolf- [157 ITR 751 (Bom)] (vii) CIT v/s. Century Enka Ltd. - [239 ITR 804 (Cal)] (viii) Tamilnadu Brick & Tile Mfg. Industrial Services Co-op. Society Ltd. v/s. CIT - [265 ITR 332 (Mad)] (ix) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v/s. State of Kerala [(1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC)] (x) S. Arjun Singh v/s. CIT - [(1989) 175 ITR 91 (Del)] (xi) Nirmala G. Mehta v/s. A. Balasubramaniam - [269 ITR 1 (Bom)]. 35. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in the reply to remand report assessee further contended that another well-established principle is that no addition/disallowance can be made merely on the basis of suspicion…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3454/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M

Section 143(3)Section 148

…kau Wolf- [157 ITR 751 (Bom)] (vii) CIT v/s. Century Enka Ltd. - [239 ITR 804 (Cal)] (viii) Tamilnadu Brick & Tile Mfg. Industrial Services Co-op. Society Ltd. v/s. CIT - [265 ITR 332 (Mad)] (ix) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v/s. State of Kerala [(1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC)] (x) S. Arjun Singh v/s. CIT - [(1989) 175 ITR 91 (Del)] (xi) Nirmala G. Mehta v/s. A. Balasubramaniam - [269 ITR 1 (Bom)]. 35. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in the reply to remand report assessee further contended that another well-established principle is that no addition/disallowance can be made merely on the basis of suspicion…

DCIT CC 38, Mumbai vs. K Sera Sera Productions Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Cc-36, Room No. M/S K. Sera Sera Productions 32(1), Ground Floor, Ltd., 18, 4Th Floor, Mohid Vs. Aayakarbhavan, Mumbai- Heights, Above Masala 400020. Mantra Restaurant, Lokhandwala Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaacg5103D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. D.G. Pansari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Satish Modi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Satish Modi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. D.G. Pansari, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…he Ld. counsel on the decision in Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. v. CIT 41 ITR 495, Kedarnath Jude Manufacturing Co Ltd. v. CIT 82 ITR 363, CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. Ltd. 43 ITR 144, Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Anr 91 ITR 18 K.S. Narayanswami Iyer v. CIT 29 ITR 515, CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. 33 ITR 681, CIT v. J.D. Italia 141 ITR 948. Responding to the contentions of the Ld. DR that books of accounts were not produced to verify the claim made by the assessee, the Ld. counsel submits that the assessee vide letter dated 02.12.2009 had submitted clarification regarding…

Shri Shriram Toshniwal, Burhanpur vs. ACIT, Khandwa

In the result appeal the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Shri Shriram Toshniwal, Asstt. Commissioner Of Prop. M/S. Gayatri Vs. Income Tax, Enterprises, Udyog Nagar, Khandwa Burhanpur (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Abxpt0602K Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Maneesh Vaidya & Ms. Preeti Patwa, Cas Date Of Hearing 18.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2019 O R D E R

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…submission when all documentary evidences were there before him. s) In support of the retraction of statement made uls 133A the assessee wishes to place reliance on some of the following judgments :- 1. Pullangode Rubber Products Co. Ltd. Vis State of Kerala 91 ITR 18 (SC) (copy at pages 06 to 08 of Case Laws PB) An admission in a statement recorded on oath is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it is always open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. 2. Krishnan Vis Kurukshetra University AIR 1976 SC 376 (copy at pages 09 to 17 of…

Smt. Jagjit Kaur Chawla, Mohali vs. DCIT, Mohali

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

ITA 189/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR

Section 250(6)Section 36

…ion entered in the course of assessment proceedings rather the applicant has agreed for making of addition against the agreed addition. Reference in this regard may be made to the following cases: Pullangode Rubber Products Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala & Anr, 91 ITR 18 (SC), wherein, it was held that admission made was an extremely important piece of evidence and though it was not conclusive the statement made by the assessee could form basis of assessment. 6 A.Y.2011-12 (2) Dewan Bahadur Seth Gopal Das Mohta Vs. The Union of India & Ors. (SC) 26 ITR. Where the petitioner entered into a voluntary settlement wi…

Mrs. Reena Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. PAN No. AABPJ0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. ReenaJain, Deputy Commissioner of…

Mr.Ratnesh Chand Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. PAN No. AABPJ0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. ReenaJain, Deputy Commissioner of…

Sajjan Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1458/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

…Rs.18 crores made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appals) is not sustainable. In support of this contention, he relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Limited –vs.- State of Kerala & Another [91 ITR 18 (Supreme Court)]; (ii) K.T. M.S. Mohammed & Another –vs.- Union of India [197 ITR 196 (Supreme Court at page 213)]; (iii) Shree Ganesh Trading Co. –vs.- CIT, Dhanbad [257 ITR 359 (Jharkhand)]; (iv) CIT –vs.- Smt. S. Jayalakshmi Ammal 390 ITR 189 (Madras at page 197); (v) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Kolkata –vs.- Ajanta Foot…

Shri Sudeep Maheshwari, Bhopal vs. The ACIT -1(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA 299/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 132(4)

…] in personal name. It is also stated that the case laws as relied by the A.O. are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 18 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that admission cannot be said that it is conclusive. Retraction from admission was permissible in law and it was open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. However, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Chand…

The ACIT, 1(1), Bhopal vs. Shri Sudeep Maheshwari, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA 524/IND/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 132(4)

…] in personal name. It is also stated that the case laws as relied by the A.O. are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 18 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that admission cannot be said that it is conclusive. Retraction from admission was permissible in law and it was open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. However, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Chand…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Khandwa vs. Shri Sandeep Kumar Mundra. Prop.M/S S.K. Enterprises, Burhanpur

In the result, both the revenue’s appeals in ITANo

ITA 511/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Shri Sudhir Kumar Mundra. Prop. Khandwa M/S. Sudhir Trading Co., बनाम/ Jamalpura, Vs. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Acvpm3934G Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Shri Sandeep Kumar Mundra. Prop. Khandwa M/S. S. K. Enterprises, Amagird, बनाम/ Kalabagh, Burhanpur Vs. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Abtpm8551C Appellant By Shri Rajiv Jain Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca Date Of Hearing: 26.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2019

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

…The ld. CIT(A) has after considering all the above documents has allowed the appeal as recorded in para 3.15 and 3.16 at page 10 of his order. 10. Reliance is placed on the following decisions :- 1. Pullangode Rubber Produce CO, Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) 2. Urmila Agrawal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income – tax (2014) 24 ITJ 785 (Trib. – Indore) 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income – tax v. Smt. Usha Rani Talla [2010] 6 ITR (T) 37 (Delhi) 4. Assistant Commissioner of Income – tax, Central Circle, Agra v. Maya Trading Co. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 144 (Agra - Trib.) 9. We have heard the rival cont…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Khandwa vs. Shri Sudhir Kumar Mundra. Prop. M/S Sudhir Trading Co., Burhanpur

In the result, both the revenue’s appeals in ITANo

ITA 510/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Shri Sudhir Kumar Mundra. Prop. Khandwa M/S. Sudhir Trading Co., बनाम/ Jamalpura, Vs. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Acvpm3934G Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Shri Sandeep Kumar Mundra. Prop. Khandwa M/S. S. K. Enterprises, Amagird, बनाम/ Kalabagh, Burhanpur Vs. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Abtpm8551C Appellant By Shri Rajiv Jain Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca Date Of Hearing: 26.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2019

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

…The ld. CIT(A) has after considering all the above documents has allowed the appeal as recorded in para 3.15 and 3.16 at page 10 of his order. 10. Reliance is placed on the following decisions :- 1. Pullangode Rubber Produce CO, Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) 2. Urmila Agrawal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income – tax (2014) 24 ITJ 785 (Trib. – Indore) 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income – tax v. Smt. Usha Rani Talla [2010] 6 ITR (T) 37 (Delhi) 4. Assistant Commissioner of Income – tax, Central Circle, Agra v. Maya Trading Co. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 144 (Agra - Trib.) 9. We have heard the rival cont…