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

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.

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 153A Section 132 Section 147 Section 68 Section 69A Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statement retracted statement statement under section 132(4)section 158bb section 132(4a)dumb documents section 132(4)on-money section 69b loose papers panchnama section 158b

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

Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 515/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

…he seized material lacks critical details such as entity-wise, project-specific, and customer-wise particulars, rendering the addition conditional and unsubstantiated. In support of this submission, the appellant relied : • Pullangode Rubber Produce Co., 1973 91 ITR 18 SC, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that admissions are not conclusive evidence and can be rebutted to show that admission is incorrect. • Naresh Kumar Agarwal v. (2015) 53 taxmann.com 306 where it was held that statements that lack supporting evidence lack any probative value. v) The appellant further argued that while the AO accepted the r…

ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Skandhanshi Infra Projects India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 311/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

…eized material lacks critical details such as entity-wise, project-specific, and customer-wise particulars, rendering the admission conditional and unsubstantiated. In support of this submission, the appellant relied on: • Pullangode Rubber Produce Co., 1973 91 ITR 18 SC, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that admissions are not conclusive evidence and can be rebutted to show that admission is incorrect. • Naresh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, (2015) 53 taxmann.com 306 where it was held that statements made without supporting evidence lack any probative value. v) The appellant further argued that while…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sujai Anand Reddy, Chennai

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

ITA 617/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.617/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sujai Anand Reddy, No. 4, 10Th Street, Nandanam, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai 600 035. Chennai. [Pan: Aakps5124P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mohan Das, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 6 Grounds Of Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Mohan Das, CA

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…ion unless corroborated. Further a statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has evidentiary value but cannot be the sole basis for an addition without corroborative evidence, as held in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [(1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC)]. Therefore, the undersigned is of the view that the action of the AO, without bringing corroborative evidence while making addition in the hands of the appellant is not appropriate. 6.3.13 Further the provisions of Section 69 of the Act pertain to unexplained investments. For an addition under this section, the AO must conclusively establish…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Pooja Kedia, Jaipuir

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1321/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 68

…bstantial questions of law framed by the appellant pertained to an open issue which stands concluded by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; one such decision was rendered in "M/s Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala And Another" [1973] 19 ITR 18. Thus, as is evident that except statement of Shri Praveen Jain there was no corroborative evidence was placed on record and therefore, we do not find any reasons to sustain that addition and direct Id. AO to delete the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- made in the hands of the assessee. 7. To support the contention so raised in the written submission…

Sdc Construction, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 1(3), Jiapur

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

ITA 347/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mathur, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR a

Section 144BSection 147Section 249(4)(a)Section 68

…the substantial questions of law framed by theappellant pertained to an openissuewhich stands concluded by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court;one such decision was rendered in "M/sPullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v.State of Kerala And Another" [1973] 19 ITR 18." We are citing the case law in the matter of CIT V. Lovely Exports(P.) Ltd (2008)216 CTR 195(SC)[ refer compilation of case law page no 104] Wherein The Apex court held that "If the share application money is received by the assessee Company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing officer, then the department is fre…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Income Tax Office vs. Supreme Polymers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the results the appeal of the

ITA 189/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 189/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 137-138, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 5773 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की ता

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…bstantial questions of law framed by the appellant pertained to an open issue which stands concluded by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; one such decision was rendered in "M/s Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala And Another" [1973] 19 ITR 18..." Similar is the case on hand and based on the statement of third party statement i.e. statement of Mr. Satish Monga, the proceeding u/s 153A was initiated and addition was made by the Ld. AO despite the fact that the year under consideration was unabated assessment year and no incriminating material was found during the course of search action c…

ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result the appeal I

ITA 98/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

…bring on record, corroborate evidence to substantiate the statement recorded from any person and this legal principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd., vs., State of Kerala And Anr. (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarwan Singh vs., State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637 held that, “a confession may be treated as voluntary however that by itself may not be suffice. For the confession to be accepted as valid evidence, it is necessary to establish that, the confession is true”. In the present case, going by the evidence o…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1, Raipur vs. M/S. Chhatisgarh Distilleries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 103/RPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Rpr/2020 Co No.15/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69C

…s in personal name. It is also slated 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. Chandrakumar…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Ram Battery India Private Limited, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1167/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1167/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ram Battery India Private Tax, Limited, Central Circle-1, No.406, Perundurai Road, Coimbatore Erode, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. [Pan: Aagcr3898A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.37/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Battery India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of No.406, Perundurai Road, Erode, Income Tax, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. Central Circle-1, [Pan: Aagcr3898A] Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Cross Objector/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. Cit. : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) For Cross Objector / Respondent सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Is An Appeal (Ita No.1167/Chny/2025) Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)

Section 131Section 133A

…accounted in their books under ‘Building Hotel Ram Inn’. Therefore, in this case by filing the expenditure, the assessee has duly shown that the statement made was not correct. The Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 held that an admission is extremely 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. Any statement recorded under section 133A would have evidentiary value only if supported with materials and form the basis for assessment. 11. The jurisdict…

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 569/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 133ASection 234A

…e the existence of such disclosed income or earning of such income in the hands of the assessee, it could not be said that the Revenue had lost lawful tax payable by the assessee. In the decision in Putlangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18, the apex court held mat an admission is extremely 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. Where a survey was conducted in the premises of the assessee, a medical practitioner, and a statement was recorded from him, in which the asse…

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 568/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 133ASection 234A

Shailesh Goyal, Tonk vs. ACIT, Centre Circle Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 496/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…the existence of such disclosed income or earning of such income in the hands of the assessee, it could not be said that the Revenue had lost lawful tax payable by the assessee. In the decision in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18, the apex court held mat an admission is extremely 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. Where a survey was conducted in the premises of the assessee, a medical practitioner, and a statement was recorded from him, in which the ass…

Gupta Ashok Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 376/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR

Section 148Section 68

…bstantial questions of law framed by the appellant pertained to an open issue which stands concluded by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; one such decision was rendered in "M/s Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala And Another" (1973) 19 ITR 18. 12. Therefore, we hold that no substantial question of law arises between the parties and while so, the present Income Tax Appeal is not maintainable. 28 ITA.No.376/Hyd./2024 13. For the foregoing reasons, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.25/2024 is dismissed. 53. Based on the discussion so recorded herein above we do not find any infirmity in the orde…

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 813/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ubstantial questions of law framed by the appellant pertained to an open issue which stands concluded by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; one such decision was rendered in "M/s PullangodeRubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala And Another" [1973] 19 ITR 18. We also get support of our from the decision of the apex court in the case of PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited [ 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC)]wherein the court held that : 12. If the submission on behalf of the Revenue that in case of search even where no incriminating material is found during the course of search, even in case of unabated/c…

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,o aJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihyla-@ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. cuke ACIT, Vs. Ltd. Central Circle- 1, Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Jaipur and Kashmir LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA jktLo…

Kshipra Dhawan, Saharanpur vs. DCIT Cen Cir Ddn, Dehradun

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

ITA 171/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…tax audit report could not have formed the basis of additions/disallowances made by the AO, the Hon’ble Court referred to the observations in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Puollangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. State of Kerala & Anr. (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that an admission is and extremely piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it was conclusive and its was open to the person who made the said admission to show that the admission was incorrect. Further, in the order of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the case of Kalpesh Synthetics (P) Ltd. in ITA N.178…

Kshipra Dhawan, Saharanpur vs. DCIT Cen Cir Ddn, Dehradun

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

ITA 170/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

Rajiv Kumar Tiwari, Saharanpur vs. DCIT-ACIT- Cen Cir Ddn, Dehradun

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

ITA 157/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Rajiv Kumar Tiwari, Acit, Central Circle, A-7, Awas Vikas, Dehradun, Income Tax Office, 52/1, Delhi Road, Vs Rajpur Road, Dehradun Saharanpur, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttar Pradesh-247001 Pan-Adfpt9463L Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40Section 44A

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 680/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…vely proved as against admitted proof. In the absence of rebuttable conclusion, admission bind the maker when these are not rebuttable or retracted. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullengode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. In the case of Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 64 (HP), the High Court has held that the admission made by an assessee constitute a relevant piece of evidence but if the assessee contend…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 679/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 153A

…ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court in the case of Pullengode ITA Nos.675 to 675 to 680/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016 16-17 to 2021-22) M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. :: 20 :: Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) that an Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (91 ITR 18) admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is c…