Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 620 (3.98 seconds)
Documents citing Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs State Of Kerala And Anr. on 22 September, 1971

Sunil Agarwal vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 31 May, 2002

25. The second retraction by Shri Ramesh Manocha is also very interesting. His statement was recorded on 12th July, 1996, wherein he conceded that he was engaged in issuing bogus bills in respect of which he was earning commission from the assessee in respect of his three concerns. Later on Shri Rajesh Manocha vide his letter dt. 15th July, 1996, again confirmed the same and also stated that Shri Jagvinay Singh and Shri Surinder Pal Singh, the proprietors of the two other concerns were also involved in issuing bogus bills and the bills were prepared at his own residence. Then came the retraction on 29th Aug., 1996, stating that his statement recorded on 12th July, 1996, was under a coercion. If these facts are tested on the judgment in the case of Puttangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. (supra), the retraction can only be said to be unsuccessful. If the statement recorded by the AO on 12th July, 1996, was under threat, his voluntary letter dt. 15th July, 1996, stating the similar facts cannot be said to be made under any threat or fear or coercion. These two things happened on different dates and had a gap of three days. In the light of these facts, the retraction made by Shri Ramesh Manocha on 29th Aug., 1996, in respect of statement dt. 12th July, 1996, does not stand to pass the test laid down in the precedents cited in this connection.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 42 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sunil Agarwal vs Asstt. Cit on 31 May, 2002

25. The second retraction by Shri Ramesh Manocha is also very interesting. His statement was recorded on 12-7-1996, wherein he conceded that he was engaged in issuing bogus bills in respect of which he was earning commission from the assessed in respect of his three concerns. Later on Shri Rajesh Manocha vide his letter dated 15-7-1996, again confirmed the same and also stated that Shri Jagvinay Singh and Shri Surinder Pal Singh, the Proprietors of the two other concerns were also involved in issuing bogus bills and the bills were prepared at his own residence. Then came the retraction on 29-8-1996, stating that his statement recorded on 12-7-1996, was under a coercion. If these facts are tested on the judgment in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. (supra), the retraction can only be said to be unsuccessful. If the statement recorded by the assessing officer on 12-7-1996, was under threat, his voluntary letter dated 15-7-1996, stating the similar facts cannot be said to be made under any threat or fear or coercion. These two things happened on different dates and had a gap of three days. In the light of these facts, the retraction made by Shri Ramesh Manocha on 29-8-1996, in respect of statement dated 12-7-1996, does not stand to pass the test laid down in the precedents cited in this connection.
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 92 - Full Document

Mr. Ashok Bathla, Bangalore vs Dcit, Bangalore on 25 October, 2019

7.The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had retracted the declaration made during search and thus the addition confirmed merely based on admission without any tangible evidence is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and another reported in 91 ITR 18.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Surya Singhal,Kota vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 17 September, 2025

In support of this argument, the appellant relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala & Another, (1973) 91 ITR 0018 (SC), Hon'ble Court there in held that the admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot 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. The assessee admitted the payment of Rs. 11,00,000/- made out of his undisclosed income and such admission was made under mistaken belief and the assessee has shown the error in search statement by filing the documents before the ld AO. The statement cannot override the documentary evidence. The department cannot take the advantage of mistake of assessee and due tax as per the law can only be levied from assessee. It is also submitted that the onus u/s 69 of the Act was of the department to prove that the unexplained investment was made by assessee and such onus was not discharged and addition was made without making any independent inquiries.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.M.Narayanan & Bros vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax on 13 July, 2011

14. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, when the assessee had explained the statement made on the second day of the search with materials, that the amounts offered were the loans taken from the relatives who were already assessed on the said amount; apart from this, even otherwise, the transactions relating to pawn broking, related to years prior to the date of assessment and had no relevance to the year under consideration, rightly the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the case of assessee to cancel the assessment on Rs.4.00 lakhs. Thus when the assessee had explained his statement as not correct in the context of the materials produced, as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in (1973) 91 ITR 18 (Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. V. State of Kerala and another), we do not think that the Tribunal would be justified in its conclusion that the statement made would clothe the assessment with legality. Quite apart from that, the case of the assessee also stands supported by the Circular dated 10th March, 2003 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which has given categorical directions to the officers, who are entrusted with the job of assessment that undue emphasis should not be placed on the statements recorded. In fact, it had given a mandate not to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Thus applying the Circular dated 10th March, 2003 to the facts of the case, which is binding on the Revenue, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the Tribunal. As already pointed out that except for the statements referred to by the Tribunal, it had not adverted its attention to the materials produced by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) explaining the claim that the said amount could not be included in the hands of the assessee.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd., vs Acit, Ajmer on 7 July, 2017

The business affairs of the assessee are controlled by the Directors and they run the business as deemed fit. The survey was conducted as per provisions of Sec. 133A of the I.T. Act at the business premises of the assessee and findings of the survey have been considered by the AO while making the above addition. Further, AO has also pointed out that Shri Ashok Kumar Bohra, MD of the company is highly qualified and is fully conversant with the business affairs. It may be mentioned that assessee himself after the survey had paid advance tax of Rs. 17 lac till 27.03.2009 on the income surrendered and only balance amount of Rs. 9 lac was not paid as pointed out by the AO in the assessment order. If assessee had any objection to the survey results, there was no need for the assessee to pay any amount of tax on the surrendered income. The assessee's contention that decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 relied upon the is a old judgment does not in any case change the ratio of the said decision. All the necessary facts on record for deciding the issue have been considered and in fact remand report of the AO have been called twice so as to seek clarification regarding the contentions made by the appellant.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar,Kanpur vs Deputi Commissioner Of Income Tax Cc-2, ... on 26 September, 2025

'It is well settled law that admission are not conclusive proof of the matter. They may be shown to be untrue or having been made under mistake of fact or law. Circumstances have to be seen under which same are made. It can be withdrawn unless it is estoppel and conclusive. The Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18, held that the assessee should be given opportunity to show that admission is incorrect or does not show correct state of facts.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 146 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax,Cc-2,, ... vs Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur on 26 September, 2025

'It is well settled law that admission are not conclusive proof of the matter. They may be shown to be untrue or having been made under mistake of fact or law. Circumstances have to be seen under which same are made. It can be withdrawn unless it is estoppel and conclusive. The Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18, held that the assessee should be given opportunity to show that admission is incorrect or does not show correct state of facts.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 146 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next