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 366,314 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

Brij Bhushan Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1413/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…M.S. Mohammad Vs VOI (1992) 65 Taxman 130 (SC) " Narayan Bhagwant Roa Gosavi Balajiwale Vs Gopal Vinayak Gosavi AIR (1960) SC 100 " Ramji Dayawal & Sons P. Ltd. Vs Invest Import AIR (1981) SC 2085 " Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) " Y. Ramachandra Reddy Vs Addl. CIT(Assessmetn) (2015) 57 Taxmann.com 43 (AP & Tel) " CIT Vs Lekh Raj Dhunna (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 554 (P&H) " CIT, Kozhikode Vs O. Abdul Razak (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 48 (Ker.) " Nathu Lal Vs Durga Prasad AIR (1954) SC 355, 358 " Union of India Vs Moksh Builders and Financiers Ltd. AIR (1997) SC 409, 415 " Biswan…

Brij Bhushan Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1412/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…M.S. Mohammad Vs VOI (1992) 65 Taxman 130 (SC) " Narayan Bhagwant Roa Gosavi Balajiwale Vs Gopal Vinayak Gosavi AIR (1960) SC 100 " Ramji Dayawal & Sons P. Ltd. Vs Invest Import AIR (1981) SC 2085 " Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) " Y. Ramachandra Reddy Vs Addl. CIT(Assessmetn) (2015) 57 Taxmann.com 43 (AP & Tel) " CIT Vs Lekh Raj Dhunna (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 554 (P&H) " CIT, Kozhikode Vs O. Abdul Razak (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 48 (Ker.) " Nathu Lal Vs Durga Prasad AIR (1954) SC 355, 358 " Union of India Vs Moksh Builders and Financiers Ltd. AIR (1997) SC 409, 415 " Biswan…

The DCIT, Circle-2, Surat vs. Maruti Hardware, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 148/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.148/Ahd/2013/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Maruti Hardware, Income Tax, 1-2, Thakor Baug, Circle – 2, Surat. New Civil Road, Near Kapadia Health Club, Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aaefm 1969 J] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent C.O.No.63/Ahd/2013/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 Maruti Hardware, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1-2, Thakor Baug, Income Tax, New Civil Road, Near Range– 2, Surat 395 001. Kapadia Health Club, Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aaefm 1969 J] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rajesh Upadhyay – Itp िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri R.P.Rastogi – Sr.Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 25.09.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 10.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Accoutant Member: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–Ii, Surat(In Short

Section 142(3)Section 143(3)

…retracted and necessary evidence is led contrary to such admission. (1) CIT vs. Kallashben Manharlal Chokshi (2009) 25 (i) ITCL (Guj) 129 (2) Paul Matews and Sons v.CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) (3) Pullangode Rubber Produce co Ltd. Vs.State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC). (4) ITO v.Fakirchand L Gupta :: ITA No.4158/Ahd/2008 A.Y.2005-06 Maruti Hardware Vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Surat/I.T.A. No.148/AHD/2013/SRT/A.Y.: 2009-10 Page 10 of 14 In view of above discussion, it is clear that A.O. has no evidence other than statements of partner to support the addition made by him. This statement has also no base in absence…

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Manba Finance Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1448/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar SinghFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 133ASection 68

…sed its return of income filed on 27.9.2013 and has been able to show with various details and loan was incorrect. In this regard, he referred to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) for observation that "an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it can not be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the person who made admission to show that it is incorrect." 22. In view of above discussion, he held that the addition of Rs.7,75,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan received from concerns/companies c…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1284/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी डी डी. क"णाकरा राव डी लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" "ी "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव,लेखा सद"य क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1281 to 1284/PUN/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िन…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1283/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी डी डी. क"णाकरा राव डी लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" "ी "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव,लेखा सद"य क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1281 to 1284/PUN/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िन…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1282/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी डी डी. क"णाकरा राव डी लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" "ी "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव,लेखा सद"य क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1281 to 1284/PUN/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िन…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1281/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी डी डी. क"णाकरा राव डी लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" "ी "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव,लेखा सद"य क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1281 to 1284/PUN/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िन…

Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1072/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी डी डी. क"णाकरा राव डी लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" "ी "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव,लेखा सद"य क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1281 to 1284/PUN/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िन…

Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1071/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी डी डी. क"णाकरा राव डी लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" "ी "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव,लेखा सद"य क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1281 to 1284/PUN/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िन…

Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1070/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी डी डी. क"णाकरा राव डी लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य के सम" "ी "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव,लेखा सद"य क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1281 to 1284/PUN/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िन…

DCIT, Cir-2(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Yash Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 689/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 689/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Yash Alloys Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaacy 2289 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…h as it cannot be made the sole basis for making addition when such admission was later retracted and there was no material on record to support the admission. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd vs State of Kerala [1073] 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 case of CIT vs Ravindra Kumar Jain [2011] 12 taxman.com 257, the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand held that no addition can be made on the basis of the statemen…

The DCIT, Central Circle 3, Surat vs. M/S. A.N. Lubricant, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 591/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.591/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs A.N. Lubricants, Income-Tax, 45, Gidc, Ichhapore, Central Circle-3, Surat Bhatpore, Choryasi, Surat. [Pan: Aanfa 7286 P] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132(4)

…the case of Page 9 of 10 Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 411 (Guj.) where CBDT Instruction F. No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv) dtd. 10.03.2003 has been followed. The 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, the assessee had shown that admission based on seized material B-90 to 92 is not correct as no such amount can be worked out from thes…

Shri Anil Kumar Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4392/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani TanejaFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 141Section 142(1)

…any. Learned CIT(A) rightly relied on the decisions reported in the case of Aanisa Batool Gilani vs ACIT (2008) 21 SOT 323 (Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble Bench examined the ratio of the decisions in Pullan Gode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC); ACIT vs Ramesh Chandra R. Patel, 361 ITAT (Adh); Surjeet Singh Chhabra AIT 1997 SC 2560; Dr. S.C. Gupta vs CIT (2001) 248 ITR 782 (All) and Greenview Restaurant vs ACIT (2003) 263 ITR 169 (Gauhati) and held that the assessee must give justifiable reason and material for the retraction to be acceptable and also give cogent material to show tha…

ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata vs. M/S International Book Trust, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 271/KOL/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 271/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-40, Kolkata -Vs- M/S International Book Trust [Pan: Aabfi 3840 H ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Bandyopadhyay, Addl. CIT,Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, Advocate
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…No. 6 in which the so called declaration has been made is premature and appears dumb to say the least. The ld CITA placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd vs State of Kerala reported in (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) wherein it was 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. Both in the post survey proceedings and scrutiny assessment proceedings, detailed explanations were submitted by the assessee which was supp…

Sh. Didar Singh S/O Sh. Prem Singh, Kapurthala vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kapurthala

In the result, the assessee succeeds

ITA 542/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.542(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Harminder Syal (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra (Ld. DR)
Section 250(6)Section 44ASection 68

…s while dealing with the retracted confession analyzed and summarized the position in detail and some of the conclusions drawn by the Apex Court and the High Courts are as under: The Apex Court in the case of Pulkngode Rubber Producer Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1973] 91 ITR 18, 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" . 8 Sh. Didar Singh, Kapurthala vs. DCIT The Apex Court in the case of CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 352 ITR 0480 (SC), held that " The statement recorde…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2783/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…Sandeep Bindra Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 2647 to 2651 /Del/2011 ITA No. 2782 to 2786 and 1286/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2006-07) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―G‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2647 to 2651 /Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2006-07) Sandeep Bindra, Vs. ACIT, 50, Defence Colony Market, Central Circle-9, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AADPB7687B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 2782 to 2786 and 1286/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2007-08) ACIT, Vs. Sandeep Bindra, Central Circle-9, 50, Defence Col…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2782/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…Sandeep Bindra Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 2647 to 2651 /Del/2011 ITA No. 2782 to 2786 and 1286/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2006-07) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―G‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2647 to 2651 /Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2006-07) Sandeep Bindra, Vs. ACIT, 50, Defence Colony Market, Central Circle-9, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AADPB7687B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 2782 to 2786 and 1286/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2007-08) ACIT, Vs. Sandeep Bindra, Central Circle-9, 50, Defence Col…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2651/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…Sandeep Bindra Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 2647 to 2651 /Del/2011 ITA No. 2782 to 2786 and 1286/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2006-07) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―G‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2647 to 2651 /Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2006-07) Sandeep Bindra, Vs. ACIT, 50, Defence Colony Market, Central Circle-9, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AADPB7687B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 2782 to 2786 and 1286/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2007-08) ACIT, Vs. Sandeep Bindra, Central Circle-9, 50, Defence Col…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2650/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…Sandeep Bindra Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 2647 to 2651 /Del/2011 ITA No. 2782 to 2786 and 1286/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2006-07) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―G‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2647 to 2651 /Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2006-07) Sandeep Bindra, Vs. ACIT, 50, Defence Colony Market, Central Circle-9, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AADPB7687B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 2782 to 2786 and 1286/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2007-08) ACIT, Vs. Sandeep Bindra, Central Circle-9, 50, Defence Col…