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

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 678/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

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…

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 677/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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…

Ila Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5219/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ms. Ila Jitendra Mehta, DCIT, Central Circle 8(4), 2601, 26th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Shivtapi Apt., Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. HG Marg,Gamdevi, Mumbai – 400 007 PAN: ABDPM4231H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. A.R. Revenue by : Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 08 . 05 . 2025 Date of Pronouncement :02 . 06 . 2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5671/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

…decisions wherein the Courts have consistently held that admission, per se, cannot be the foundation of assessment; admission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. - Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) - The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) 46. To the same effect are the following decisions: Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 IT…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Rakesh Goel, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1204/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…brought on record by Id. AO by making any independent enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings. In this regards reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. vs State Of Kerala And Anr (Supreme Court) 91 ITR 18 (1973) 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. PCIT vs. Texraj Realty P. Ltd (Guj HC) 612/2018 “Addition of undisclosed income cannot be made on the basis of (a) entries in dairy found during survey & (b) admis…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. S A Builders and Developers, Hyderabad

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 296/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.258 & 259/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. S.A. Builders & Developers, Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 2(1) Pan:Acufs3331A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.295 & 296/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Acit Vs. M/S. S.A. Builders & Central Circle 2(1) Developers, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acufs3331A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Two Sets Of Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Both Dated 29/04/2022, Arising From The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Ys 2016-17 & Page 1 Of 56

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…then the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable and liable to be deleted. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (S.C) and submitted that though an admission is a good piece of evidence, but it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. When there is no incriminating evidence found either during the search or survey relating to the admission of Rs.2.5 crores, then the said disclosure itself is incorrect. The learned AR has r…

S A Builders & Developers, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 258/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.258 & 259/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. S.A. Builders & Developers, Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 2(1) Pan:Acufs3331A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.295 & 296/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) Acit Vs. M/S. S.A. Builders & Central Circle 2(1) Developers, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acufs3331A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Two Sets Of Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Both Dated 29/04/2022, Arising From The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Ys 2016-17 & Page 1 Of 56

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…then the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable and liable to be deleted. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (S.C) and submitted that though an admission is a good piece of evidence, but it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. When there is no incriminating evidence found either during the search or survey relating to the admission of Rs.2.5 crores, then the said disclosure itself is incorrect. The learned AR has r…

Rajesh Kumar Poonia, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 623/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal, Adv. (V.C)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Add. CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…that it is incorrect and the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to show that the books of accounts do not correctly disclose the correct state of facts, vide decision of the apex court in Pulkngode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs Stat e of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18. (ii) In contradiction 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 Incom…

Rajesh Kumar Poonia, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 611/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal, Adv. (V.C)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Add. CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…that it is incorrect and the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to show that the books of accounts do not correctly disclose the correct state of facts, vide decision of the apex court in Pulkngode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs Stat e of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18. (ii) In contradiction 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 Incom…

Shri Dinesh Man Singh, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- II, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 587/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow01 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Dinesh Man Singh Dcit Central Circle-Ii V. Shri Kanchan Khanna, 15/45- Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, B, Civil Lines, Kanpur-208001. Allenganj, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Acqpm1819H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vikas Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…4. Copy of aforesaid decision is enclosed as Annexure-5. The assessee in support of its averments herein before also finds support from following decisions: (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Pullangoda Rubber Produce Co Ltd. vs, State of Kerala 91 ITR 18 have held that it would be open to the assessee making admission to show that it is incorrect. (ii) Separate additions cannot be made by assessing officer on account of investment in moveable property, source of which was already subjected to tax, even if the addition was made on the basis of statement of assessee recorded by ADI ws 132(4). -Dy. CI…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam vs. Pinnathevar Palanichamy, Madurai

ITA 3015/CHNY/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025
For Appellant: Mr.Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132

…nder oath u/s 132(4), cannot be considered as corroborative evidence. At this stage, it is important to refer to the reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18, which was brushed aside by the AO in the assessment as not applicable to the facts of the case. In this case, the Apex Court held that though admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect In this regard, the appellant had done his part in proving the contents…

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 270A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1279/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke Ajay Bakliwal ACIT, Vs. C 6 Vallabh Bari, Vallabh Bari, Central Circle, Kota Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7775 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Ani…

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Cirle, Kota

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

ITA 1277/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rajendra SisodiaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…![](_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg) # vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;i qj U;k;ihB] t;i qj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"A" JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; d s le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, > vk;dj vihy l a-@ITA Nos. 1276 & 1277/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 | Ajay Bakliwal | cuke | ACIT, | | | |------------------------------------------------------------|------|-----------------------|--|--| | C 6 Vallabh Bari, Vallabh…

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1276/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajendra SisodiaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;i qj U;k;ihB] t;i qj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; d s le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy l a-@ITA Nos.1276 & 1277/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Ajay Bakliwal Vs. ACIT, C 6 Vallabh Bari, Vallabh Bari, Kota cuke Central Circle, Kota LFkk;h y s[kk la-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7775 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Sisodia jktLo dh…

Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that

ITA 1192/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 153CSection 250

…arch u/s 132(4) of the Act, there is no reference to any undisclosed cash, jewellery, bullion, valuable article or documents containing any undisclosed income having been found during the search " v. Pullanguegode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18 (SC) 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. vi. Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 64 (SC): It was held that it is true that an admission made by an assessee constitutes a relevant piece of evidence…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Jaipur vs. Shri Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that

ITA 1149/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 153CSection 250

…arch u/s 132(4) of the Act, there is no reference to any undisclosed cash, jewellery, bullion, valuable article or documents containing any undisclosed income having been found during the search " v. Pullanguegode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18 (SC) 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. vi. Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 64 (SC): It was held that it is true that an admission made by an assessee constitutes a relevant piece of evidence…

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

…lable with him or brought on record after making independent enquiry or investigation to support the allegation that the assessee has received INR 5 Lakhs. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala reported in 91 ITR 18 (SC) observed as under: "It is no doubt true that entries in the account books of the assessee amount to an admission that the amount in question was laid out or expended for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants from which no agricultural income was derived during the previous year. An admission is an extremely important piece…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…on documents and evidence found during the search. These statements, made under oath, carry significant evidentiary weight and are corroborated by documentary evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [(1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC)] held that a statement recorded during proceedings carries evidentiary value unless rebutted with credible evidence.. 4. 1. 2. Facts Narrated as per Assessee’s Memory and Involvement The assessee narrated facts based on his direct memory, knowledge, and involvement in the matter. The statements were voluntary and reflected the factual Kedia…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 875/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर पीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीथालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड कमलेश जयंतभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.872 to 875 & 901/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., A-6-10, Shyam Nagar, Benad Road, Nadi Ka Phatak Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFCA 4547 C अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रTREOR/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर पीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतललक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयंतीभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.872 to 875 & 901/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Jaipur Vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., A-6-10, Shyam Nagar, Benad Road, Nadi Ka Phatak Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFCA 4547 C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रिर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee…