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

Shine Star Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4350/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…ing a quasi-criminal proceeding, the burden is entirely on the Department. Apart from the so-called admission, there is no material to hold that the income was concealed. Further Hon'ble se in case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co ltd vs. State of Kerala & ANR 91 ITR 18 had 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 this case the assessee had incurred an amount of Rs. 79,680/- for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants. The same has been capitalize…

Shine Star Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4349/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…ing a quasi-criminal proceeding, the burden is entirely on the Department. Apart from the so-called admission, there is no material to hold that the income was concealed. Further Hon'ble se in case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co ltd vs. State of Kerala & ANR 91 ITR 18 had 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 this case the assessee had incurred an amount of Rs. 79,680/- for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants. The same has been capitalize…

Sunshine Import & Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4348/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…ing a quasi-criminal proceeding, the burden is entirely on the Department. Apart from the so-called admission, there is no material to hold that the income was concealed. Further Hon'ble se in case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co ltd vs. State of Kerala & ANR 91 ITR 18 had 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 this case the assessee had incurred an amount of Rs. 79,680/- for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants. The same has been capitalize…

Vijay L. Bhawe, Thane vs. ACIT Cen Cir-12, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3296/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,F,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI "ी अ"मत शु"ला, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2006-07 Vijay L. Bhawe, ACIT 12 Bhawe House, Old CGO Gldg. बनाम/ Opp. Gadkari Rangayatan Annexe, Vs. Dr. Moose Road, 8th Floor, 803, Thane-400602 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai Mumbai-20 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.ADWPB1871F Assessment Year: 2006-07 ACIT 12 Vijay L. Bhawe, Old CGO Gldg. Annexe, बनाम/ Bhawe House, 8th Floor, 803, Opp. Gadkari R…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

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

ITA 196/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…tiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorized to administer oath and to take any sworn in statement which alone has the evidentiary value as contemplated in the law." In Pullangode Rubber Products Co Limited Vs State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18, it was held that: "-an admission is an extremely important 12 ITANos.7404 & 7405/M/2014 & ITA Nos.194 to 196/M/15 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.” 15. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Kolkata Tribunal, in the case of Assista…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

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

ITA 195/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…tiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorized to administer oath and to take any sworn in statement which alone has the evidentiary value as contemplated in the law." In Pullangode Rubber Products Co Limited Vs State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18, it was held that: "-an admission is an extremely important 12 ITANos.7404 & 7405/M/2014 & ITA Nos.194 to 196/M/15 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.” 15. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Kolkata Tribunal, in the case of Assista…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

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

ITA 194/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…tiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorized to administer oath and to take any sworn in statement which alone has the evidentiary value as contemplated in the law." In Pullangode Rubber Products Co Limited Vs State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18, it was held that: "-an admission is an extremely important 12 ITANos.7404 & 7405/M/2014 & ITA Nos.194 to 196/M/15 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.” 15. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Kolkata Tribunal, in the case of Assista…

Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

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

ITA 7512/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…tiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorized to administer oath and to take any sworn in statement which alone has the evidentiary value as contemplated in the law." In Pullangode Rubber Products Co Limited Vs State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18, it was held that: "-an admission is an extremely important 12 ITANos.7404 & 7405/M/2014 & ITA Nos.194 to 196/M/15 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.” 15. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Kolkata Tribunal, in the case of Assista…

ACIT CC 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7408/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…tiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorized to administer oath and to take any sworn in statement which alone has the evidentiary value as contemplated in the law." In Pullangode Rubber Products Co Limited Vs State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18, it was held that: "-an admission is an extremely important 12 ITANos.7404 & 7405/M/2014 & ITA Nos.194 to 196/M/15 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.” 15. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Kolkata Tribunal, in the case of Assista…

DCIT, Circle - 2, Midnapore, Paschim Medinipur vs. M/S. Grami Agro Pvt. Ltd., Paschim Medinipur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 755/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2007-08

Section 133ASection 133A(3)(i)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member Assessment Years:2007-08 DCIT, Circle-2, M/s Grami Agro Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Midnapore, Sahoo Jamda, Jhargram, Dist. / Bhawan, Kshudiram Paschim Medinipur, V/s. Ngar, P.O. Midnapore, Pin. 721 507 Dist. Paschim Medinipur [PAN No.AABCG 0207 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Md. Ghyas Uddin, JCIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri T.K.Chakraborty, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 08-06-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronounceme…

Innovators Facade Systems P.Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 2, Thane

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed in part

ITA 5450/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ing a quasi-criminal proceeding, the burden is entirely on the Department. Apart from the so-called admission, there is no material to hold that the income was concealed. Further Hon'ble se in case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co ltd vs. State of Kerala & ANR 91 ITR 18 had 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 this case the assessee had incurred an amount of Rs. 79,680/- for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants. The same has been capitalize…

Parvatiben Damji Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 3181/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3181/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Smt. Parvatiben Damji Shah, The Income Tax Officer – बनाम/ 602, Aashish Apartment, 21(1)(4), V. Tilak Mandir Road, C-10, 6 Th Floor, Vile Parle(East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 057. Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaqps2114K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69A

…o reconcile cash in the books of accounts. It was held by the AO that no ITA 3181/Mum/2014 16 material is brought on record to prove that the admission made was not correct. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the following decisions:- 1. Pullamcode Rubber Co. Ltd. , 91 ITR 18 (SC) 2. Vinod Solanki v. UOI Civil Appeal No. 7407 of 2008 arising out of SLP (C) No. 3537 of 2008 dated 18th December, 2008 (UOI (233) ELT 157 (SC). 3. CIT v. Uttamchand Jain (Bom) IT Appeal No. 634 of 2009. 4. Abdul Qaymme v. CIT (1990) 184 ITR 404 5. ITAT Bangalore Bench decision in the case of Carpenters Classics (Exim) (p) Ltd. v. DCIT 108 ITD…

ACIT, Cen. Cir-VI, Kolkata vs. Smt. Usha Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 142/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…part of the assessee to have retracted from the earlier disclosure while filing her return of income for the Asst Year 2010-11. We draw support from the following case laws in this regard:- (i) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. vs State of Kerala and Anr (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) The Hon’ble SC has observed 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. (ii) CIT vs Ravindar Kumar Jain (2011) 201 taxman 95 (Jharkhand HC) “6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned cou…

Avinash Kumar Setia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1787/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. UN Marwah, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)

…ITA NO.1787/Del/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1787/DEL/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 AVINASH KUMAR SETIA DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI B-33, SHIVALIK, VS. MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110 017 (PAN: ABBPS9057K) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. UN Marwah, FCA Department by : Sh. Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : Date of Hearing : 12 Date of Hearing : Date of Hearing : 12 12-04-201 12 201 2016 201…

ACIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Gattefosse India P. Ld, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 333/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Sonalee GodboleFor Respondent: Smt. Anu K. Aggarwal
Section 3

…vity of securing orders before commencement of actual production, it was held that the business had commenced though the actual production has not started. Hence the expenses were allowed as business loss". (ii) CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries 91 ITR 1 70 "the Gujarat High Court held that , "Business" connotes a continuous course of activities. All the activities which go. to make up the business need not be started simultaneously in order that the business may commence. The business would commence when the activity which is first in point of time and which much necessarily preceded all other acti…

S.R. Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee firm in ITA N0

ITA 3119/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3119/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S S.R. Developers, बनाम/ Asst. Commissioner Of A-3, Anjuman Nural Trust, Income Tax- Circle 15(2), V. Mohili Village, Room No. 113, Saki Naka, Matru Mandir Income Tax Andheri, Office, Mumbai 400 072. Tardeo Road, Grant Road (W), Mumbai- 400 007. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abbfs0073R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan,DR
Section 133ASection 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3119/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/s S.R. Developers, बनाम/ Asst. Commissioner of A-3, Anjuman Nural Trust, Income Tax- Circle 15(2), v. Mohili Village, Room No. 113, Saki Naka, Matru Mandir Income Tax Andheri, Office, Mumbai 400 072. Tardeo Road, Grant Road (W), Mumbai- 400 007. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : ABBFS0073R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Virag Shah Revenue by : Shri Rakesh Ranjan,DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of…

ACIT., C.C.-45, Mumbai vs. Ravinder Kaur Bhatia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year is partly allowed

ITA 4434/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4434/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2001-02)

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Shri A K Kardam

…e said presumption is a rebuttable presumption, i.e., an assessee is entitled to show that the disclosure made by him is wrong. In this regard, we may mainly refer to the decision rendered in the case of Pullangode Rubber Products Co. Ltd Vs. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) and Nagubhai ammal (AIR 1956 SC 593) In the instant case, the assessee has rebutted the presumption by preparing the profit and loss account on the basis of the documents found during the course of search. It is a matter of fact that the tax authorities did not find any fault in the statement so prepared by the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the…

Sahil Study Circle Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1434/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…is of the statement made on behalf of the respondent-assessee during the course of survey.” 7) Admission cannot be said to be conclusive and is open to rebuttal: Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 has held- "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) Addition of whole of Rs. 65.50 lacs without adjusting with business loss: 14 ITA No.1434/Del./2013 Without prejudice to the above, the Id. CIT(A) has ad…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjiv Nanda, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1911/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI `G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1850/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Sanjeev Nanda, Vs The D.C.I.T, 4, Prithvi Raj Road, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. Room No.332, ARA Centre, (PAN: ACKPN7555K) Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. I.T.A.No.1911/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08 DCIT, Vs Shri Sanjeev Nanda, Central Circle-13, 4, Prithvi Raj Road, Room No.332, ARA Centre, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ajay Wadhwa Adv.…

Mr. Sanjeev Nanda, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1850/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI `G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1850/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Sanjeev Nanda, Vs The D.C.I.T, 4, Prithvi Raj Road, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. Room No.332, ARA Centre, (PAN: ACKPN7555K) Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. I.T.A.No.1911/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08 DCIT, Vs Shri Sanjeev Nanda, Central Circle-13, 4, Prithvi Raj Road, Room No.332, ARA Centre, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ajay Wadhwa Adv.…