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

91 ITR 18Supreme Court of India1973#84 most cited

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

Admissions, whether made through entries in account books or statements, are important pieces of evidence but are not conclusive. An assessee has the right to demonstrate that an admission made by them is incorrect or can be retracted.

666

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala · 91 ITR 18 · admission not conclusive · retraction of statement · statement under section 132(4) · evidentiary value of admissions · entries in account books as evidence · proving admission incorrect · Section 68 · Section 69A

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 147Section 68Section 69ASection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statementretracted statementstatement under section 132(4)section 158bbsection 132(4a)dumb documentssection 132(4)on-moneysection 69bloose paperspanchnamasection 158b

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

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Ashok Kumar Sankhla, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 608/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Oct 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, CIT - DR

…on the basis of statement without corroborating the same with the documentary evidence. Reliance is further placed on the following case laws:- (i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangone Rubber Produce Company Ltd. V. State of Kerala and Another 91 ITR 18 held that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it can’t be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the assessee who made admission to show that it is incorrect and the assessee should be given proper opportunity to show the correct state of affairs. (ii) Surendra Pal Verma Vs. ACIT 89 ITD 129 (Chd)(TM): Confessional statemen…

ITO, WD-11(4), Kolkata vs. Ambika Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1860/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 133ASection 142(1)

…131 statement recorded on 12.04.2011 which cannot be the basis for making the addition when the facts remain that the assessee has retracted the statement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. 91 ITR 18 (SC) held that the assessee should be given opportunity to say that admission is incorrect or does not say the correct state of facts. Since the assessee has produced the books of account as well as the purchase bills which have been verified by the AO, the addition made by the AO has rightly been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has also…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Vijay Mehta, Jaipur

In the result, revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and assessee’s cross objection is dismissed

ITA 326/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Verindra Mehta( CIT)
Section 131Section 132Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 326/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2012-2013 cuke The DCIT Central, Shri Vijay Mehta, C-14, Jamuna Circle- 2, Jaipur. Vs. Nagar, Sodala, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACTPM0495J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent C.O. No. 8/JP/2016 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 326/JP/2016) cuke The DCIT Central, Circle- 2, Jaipur. Shri V…

Ratan Taxtiles P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 527/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)

…t it is incorrect and that the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to show that the books of account do not correctly disclose the correct state of facts, vide decision of the apex court in Pulkngode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18; (ii) In contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4] of the Income-tax Act enables the authorized officer to examine a person on oath and any statement made by such person during such examination can also be used in evidence under the Income-tax Act. On the other hand, whatever statement is recorded under section 133A of the…

Renu Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 746/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Pratima Kaushik, CIT -DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 153ASection 153B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES , JAIPUR Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 746/JP/2014 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Smt. Renu Agarwal The ACIT Vs. 25, Dayal Nagar, Gopal Pura Central Circle- 3 Bye-Pass, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAOPA 6576 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by:Smt. Pratima Kaushik, CIT -DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Vijay Goyal, CA lquokbZ dh rkj…

DCIT, Salem vs. Shri P. Anbazhagan, Komarapalayam

ITA 2183/CHNY/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

…the assessee made a confession during the course of search operation. The CIT (Appeals) can still retain the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Referring to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18, 18 I.T.A. Nos.2174 to 2178/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2183/Mds/2013 I.T.A. Nos.2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2179/Mds/2013 the Ld. D.R., submitted that admission is a piece of evidence which cannot be ignored at all. Therefore the CIT (Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, by placing reliance on the order…

P.Anbazhagan, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2179/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

…the assessee made a confession during the course of search operation. The CIT (Appeals) can still retain the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Referring to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18, 18 I.T.A. Nos.2174 to 2178/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2183/Mds/2013 I.T.A. Nos.2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2179/Mds/2013 the Ld. D.R., submitted that admission is a piece of evidence which cannot be ignored at all. Therefore the CIT (Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, by placing reliance on the order…

A. Jothimani, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2178/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

…the assessee made a confession during the course of search operation. The CIT (Appeals) can still retain the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Referring to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18, 18 I.T.A. Nos.2174 to 2178/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2183/Mds/2013 I.T.A. Nos.2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2179/Mds/2013 the Ld. D.R., submitted that admission is a piece of evidence which cannot be ignored at all. Therefore the CIT (Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, by placing reliance on the order…

A. Jothimani, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2177/CHNY/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

…the assessee made a confession during the course of search operation. The CIT (Appeals) can still retain the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Referring to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18, 18 I.T.A. Nos.2174 to 2178/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2183/Mds/2013 I.T.A. Nos.2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2179/Mds/2013 the Ld. D.R., submitted that admission is a piece of evidence which cannot be ignored at all. Therefore the CIT (Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, by placing reliance on the order…

A. Jothimani, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2176/CHNY/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

…the assessee made a confession during the course of search operation. The CIT (Appeals) can still retain the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Referring to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18, 18 I.T.A. Nos.2174 to 2178/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2183/Mds/2013 I.T.A. Nos.2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2179/Mds/2013 the Ld. D.R., submitted that admission is a piece of evidence which cannot be ignored at all. Therefore the CIT (Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, by placing reliance on the order…

A. Jothimani, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2175/CHNY/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

…the assessee made a confession during the course of search operation. The CIT (Appeals) can still retain the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Referring to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18, 18 I.T.A. Nos.2174 to 2178/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2183/Mds/2013 I.T.A. Nos.2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2179/Mds/2013 the Ld. D.R., submitted that admission is a piece of evidence which cannot be ignored at all. Therefore the CIT (Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, by placing reliance on the order…

A. Jothimani, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2174/CHNY/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

…the assessee made a confession during the course of search operation. The CIT (Appeals) can still retain the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Referring to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18, 18 I.T.A. Nos.2174 to 2178/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2183/Mds/2013 I.T.A. Nos.2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2179/Mds/2013 the Ld. D.R., submitted that admission is a piece of evidence which cannot be ignored at all. Therefore the CIT (Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, by placing reliance on the order…

Shri Anburaj Exports, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2173/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

…the assessee made a confession during the course of search operation. The CIT (Appeals) can still retain the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Referring to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18, 18 I.T.A. Nos.2174 to 2178/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2183/Mds/2013 I.T.A. Nos.2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2179/Mds/2013 the Ld. D.R., submitted that admission is a piece of evidence which cannot be ignored at all. Therefore the CIT (Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, by placing reliance on the order…

Shri Anburaj Exports, Komarapalayam vs. DCIT, Salem

ITA 2172/CHNY/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2174 To 2178/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2002-03, 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 & 2006-07 Smt. A. Jothimani, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2183/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri P. Anbazhagan Income Tax, V. No.11-D-2, Sivasakthi Nagar, Central Circle, Bye-Pass Road, Salem. Komarapalayam-638183 Pan : Aavpa7006J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. Anburaj Exports, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11-D, Sivasakthi Nagar, V. Income Tax, Bye-Pass Road, Central Circle, Komarapalayam Salem. Pan : Adopj2834Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

…the assessee made a confession during the course of search operation. The CIT (Appeals) can still retain the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Referring to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18, 18 I.T.A. Nos.2174 to 2178/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2183/Mds/2013 I.T.A. Nos.2172 & 2173/Mds/2013 I.T.A. No.2179/Mds/2013 the Ld. D.R., submitted that admission is a piece of evidence which cannot be ignored at all. Therefore the CIT (Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, by placing reliance on the order…

M/S. Vaildor Capital India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1979/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. S.D. Kapila, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. T.M. Shivakumar, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 92C

…. Mrs. V. Chandra, 245 ITR 610 (Del.) (iv). DIT(Inv.) vs. Pooran Mall & Sons, 96 ITR 390 (SC) (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 (SC) (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 8997/Mum/2010 (xi). GE BE (P) Ltd., 164 TTJ 40 (Bang) (xii). Navisite India Private Limited (ITA No. 5329/De./2012) (xiii). Panasonic AVC Networks India Co. Ltd. (ITA 4620/Del./2011) (xiv). Veri…

Shivansh Realty P.Ltd, Uran vs. ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5668/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5664/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Timble Reality Pvt Ltd., बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 10(3)(4), F No.2, Bldg, Gh 10, Dronagiri Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Housing Complex, Sector-30, M K Road, P O Bokadvira, Mumbai-400020 Tal.Uran-400702 (अपीऱधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 153CSection 234BSection 69C

…harassment had coercion do take place resulting putting an assessee under mental, torture; thereby the assessee loses his normal mental state of mind. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd Vs State of Kerala reported in (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 correct In view of this, it is submitted that the appellant's retraction is bonafide and should have been taken into consideration. Further, it merit attention that s…

Shivansh Land Infrastructure P.Ltd, Uran vs. ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5665/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5664/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Timble Reality Pvt Ltd., बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 10(3)(4), F No.2, Bldg, Gh 10, Dronagiri Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Housing Complex, Sector-30, M K Road, P O Bokadvira, Mumbai-400020 Tal.Uran-400702 (अपीऱधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 153CSection 234BSection 69C

…harassment had coercion do take place resulting putting an assessee under mental, torture; thereby the assessee loses his normal mental state of mind. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd Vs State of Kerala reported in (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 correct In view of this, it is submitted that the appellant's retraction is bonafide and should have been taken into consideration. Further, it merit attention that s…

Timble Realty P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5664/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5664/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Timble Reality Pvt Ltd., बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 10(3)(4), F No.2, Bldg, Gh 10, Dronagiri Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Housing Complex, Sector-30, M K Road, P O Bokadvira, Mumbai-400020 Tal.Uran-400702 (अपीऱधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 153CSection 234BSection 69C

…harassment had coercion do take place resulting putting an assessee under mental, torture; thereby the assessee loses his normal mental state of mind. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd Vs State of Kerala reported in (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 correct In view of this, it is submitted that the appellant's retraction is bonafide and should have been taken into consideration. Further, it merit attention that s…

Smt. Dayawanti Through Smt. Sunita Gupta (Legal Heir) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/357/2015HC Delhi27 Oct 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 139(1)Section 145Section 153A

…e considered at all. This court had, in Bhagirath Aggarwal ruled as follows: “11. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee also referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Pullangode Rubber Products Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala: (1973) 91 ITR 18 ITA 357/2015 & connected matters Page 21 SC for the proposition that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It was contended that it was open to the person who made the statement to show that it was incorrect. There cannot be any doubt about this position in law, but, in th…

Smt. Daya Wanti Through Smt. Sunita Gupta (Legal Heir) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA-357/2015HC Delhi27 Oct 2016
Section 139(1)Section 145Section 153A

…e considered at all. This court had, in Bhagirath Aggarwal ruled as follows: “11. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee also referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Pullangode Rubber Products Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala: (1973) 91 ITR 18 2016:DHC:7232-DB ITA 357/2015 & connected matters Page 21 SC for the proposition that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It was contended that it was open to the person who made the statement to show that it was incorrect. There cannot be any doubt about this position i…