Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 67 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras vs R. Venkataswamy Naidu on 17 February, 1956

M/S Cga Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Bathinda vs Asst. Comm. Of Income Tax, Circle - 1, ... on 15 March, 2023

"2. In the assessment proceedings, the appellant company failed to furnish proof of agricultural land holding and prove the genuineness of agricultural income shown in the return. The requisitioned books of accounts/vouchers/bills etc could not be produced before the AO thereby disentitling him to verify the activities and expenses claimed to be incurred on labour, lease money, crop expenses, plant purchases etc. In fact, the appellant company followed up its non-cooperation in proving I.T.A. No.287 to 291/Asr/2017 15 &I.T.A. No.198/Asr/2017 the agricultural income as had been done by it during the assessment proceedings of A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14. The AO categorically noted that theonus being on the appellant company to prove the genuineness of the agricultural income, remained undischarged. Thereafter, applying the law laid down in CIT Vs. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC), the AO treated the gross agricultural income shown by the appellant company as "income from other sources". In addition to that, the accretion to paid-up share capital and share premium as well as current liablities and provisions, which could not be explained by the appellant company, was treated as unexplained cash credit and added back to the income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Gca Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Bathinda vs A.C.I.T , Circle-1,, Bathinda on 13 April, 2023

"2. In the assessment proceedings, the appellant company failed to furnish proof of agricultural land holding and prove the genuineness of agricultural income shown in the return. The requisitioned books of accounts/vouchers/bills etc could not be produced before the AO thereby disentitling him to verify the activities and expenses claimed to be incurred on labour, lease money, crop expenses, plant purchases etc. In fact, the appellant company followed up its non-cooperation in proving I.T.A. No.287 to 291/Asr/2017 15 &I.T.A. No.198/Asr/2017 the agricultural income as had been done by it during the assessment proceedings of A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14. The AO categorically noted that theonus being on the appellant company to prove the genuineness of the agricultural income, remained undischarged. Thereafter, applying the law laid down in CIT Vs. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC), the AO treated the gross agricultural income shown by the appellant company as "income from other sources". In addition to that, the accretion to paid-up share capital and share premium as well as current liablities and provisions, which could not be explained by the appellant company, was treated as unexplained cash credit and added back to the income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bihar ... vs Sri Ramakrishna Deo on 14 October, 1958

the forest cannot be treated as non-agricultural income ". It was then observed that " If the enquiry had been directed on proper lines, it would have been possible for the Income- tax authorities to ascertain how much of the income is attributable to forest of a spontaneous growth and how much to trees Planted by the proprietors ", but that, in view of the long lapse of time, it was not desirable to remand the case for enquiry into the matter. Then follow the observations on which the respondent relies, and when read in the light of the findings that the plantations made by the proprietors were not negligible, they mean nothing more than that out of the total income a substantial portion was likely to be agricultural income, and that it was therefore not a fit case for ordering fresh enquiry These observations do not lay down that if considerable amounts are expended in the maintenance of forests, then it must be held that the trees were planted by the proprietors. They only mean that if a considerable portion of the forests is found to have been planted, a substantial portion of the forest income may be taken to have been derived therefrom. And this too, it must be remarked, is only a presumption of fact, the strength of which must depend on all the facts found. In the face of the clear finding in the present case that the forests with which the assessment years are concerned were of spontaneous growth, the observations quoted above can be of no assistance to the respondent. It is scarcely necessary to add that the observations " If the enquiry bad been directed on proper lines, it would have been possible for the Income-tax authorities to ascertain how much of the income is attributable to forest of spontaneous growth and how much to trees planted by the proprietors " quoted above cannot be read, as was sought to be done for the respondent, as throwing on the Department the burden of showing that the income sought to be taxed was not agricultural income. That, in their context, is not the true meaning of the observations, and the law is as laid down in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Venkataswamy Naidu (1) [1956] 29 I.T.R. 529, 534.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

Shri Dilip Mehta, Jabalpur vs A.C.I.T, Jabalpur on 16 August, 2021

4. The assessee, who pleaded his case as covered by the Tribunal's order for the immediately preceding year, has, for his part, for the current year, in contradistinction, not produced either the khasra nakal or the books of account or any proof of incurring agricultural expenditure, so as to contend having proved undertaking any further agricultural activity, which was found discontinued by the Revenue on an inspection of the assessee's site during the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2005-06. As explained in CIT v. R. Venkata Swamy Naidu (supra), in order to claim an exemption from payment of income-tax in respect of what the assessee considered agricultural income, the assessee had to put before the Revenue Authorities proper materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion that the income which was sought to be assessed was agricultural income. It was not for the Revenue to prove that it was not agricultural income. The sale of agricultural produce, i.e., as attributable to the standing crops, is though inferable, and toward which, therefore, further expenditure, as imputed on the basis of the reported profit rate, is adopted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jabalpur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Gurjeet Singh, Amritsar. vs The Income Tax Officer,, Amritsar. on 30 April, 2019

4.2 The matter, therefore, is clearly and principally factual, and toward which it may be relevant to recount briefly, the facts of the case. Goods (blood test kits) worth Rs.7,39,320 were purchased by the assessee, a Jalandhar based pathological lab, from M/s. Cosmo Diagnostics, Chennai ('CD' for short) during the previous year relevant to AY 2008-09, which amount was accordingly claimed as deduction in computing the business income for that year. The goods were stated to be not of acceptable quality. No payment was accordingly made during that year, even as a part of payment of Rs.2.20 lacs was made in the following year, which explains the credit of Rs.5,19,320 as at the beginning of the current year. It is the payments - for Rs. 5.19 lacs, claimed to be made during the current and the following year, being the third and the fourth year of the purchase, that have been doubted for their genuineness by the Revenue. What, therefore, is relevant is whether there are valid grounds for doubting the same, i.e., the genuineness of the stated cash payments. Per contra, whether the assessee has established the said payments in-as-much as the burden to prove his return and the claims preferred thereby is only on him (CIT 6 ITA No. 597/Asr/2015 (AY 2010-11) Gurjeet Singh v. ITO v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. R. Venkata Swamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Steel Kraft India, Batala vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Batala on 29 July, 2019

37(1), for want of evidence, i.e., qua the services rendered. There is no improvement in the assessee's case before the Tribunal. It needs to be appreciated that the primary burden to prove his return and the claims preferred thereby is on the assessee (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). It is only when the assessee furnishes some evidence in support of his claim that the same could be subject to verification or investigation by the Revenue authorities. The payee is stated, without showing, of having 15 years experience in the trade. He is in fact a working partner in another firm by the name 'Steel Cut Engineering' (refer his return of income at PB pgs. 1-4).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Sant Sadhu Singh, Hoshiarpur vs Income Tax Officer,Ward-4, Hoshiarpur on 29 July, 2019

It is precisely for this reason that the primary burden to prove his return, and the claims preferred thereby, is only on the assesse (refer: CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). In this context one cannot help notice the irony that the sudden, unexplained, and quantum increase in the agricultural income for the later years (AY 2012-13 onwards) corresponds to the time the notices u/s. 133(6) were issued to the assessee (being on 14.02.2012, 06.3.2012, 28.10.2014 and 13.01.2015). This is in fact further accentuated by the fact that the assessee also runs a Dera - requiring funds, in no small measure, on a regular basis, and, as afore-noted, does not maintain any accounts. On what basis, in the absence of accounts and, as it transpires, maintenance of basic records (viz. Form-J), bills of seeds; pesticides; labour; etc., then, one wonders, the assessee returns his agricultural income from year to year? That is, much less, state of the sum originally returned was by way of a mistake.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Kamal Trading Company, Raichur vs Cit, Kalaburagi on 26 February, 2020

Further, there is no separate correspondence found no record which shows that the assessee has put the fact before the AO during the assessment proceedings that the return of income has been filed belatedly. The assessee has failed to do so. The Hon'ble Apex Court in ca of CIT Vs Calcutta Agency Limited (SC) 19 ITR 191., CIT Vs R.Venkataswamy Naidu (SC) 29 ITR 529, and Gopi Ram Lila Vs CIT(Raj.) 225 ITR 320 has held that to claim any exemption/deduction, duty of assessee to substantiate it with records and evidences. Moreover, the AO has no discretionary power to condone the delay in filing the return of income so as to allow deduction u/s 80IA r.w.80AC of the Act. The fact of the matter is that the return of income was filed belatedly and as per the provisions of section 80AC, the return should ITA No.932/Bang/2016 4 have been filed as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the IT Act to claim deduction u/s 80IA and the assessee has not complied with this precondition and without condoning the delay AO could not have allowed the deduction and he has no power to condone the delay in filing the return of income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri N. Balakrishnan, Chennai vs Acit, Non Corporate Circle 1(1), ... on 8 May, 2020

(1955) 27 ITR 1(SC) and CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu (1956) 29 ITR 529(SC) We have considered it appropriate that the matter needed to go back to the file of the AO for framing denovo assessment on merits of the issue as well on legal/jurisdictional ground raised by assesse wrt reopening of the concluded assessment u/s 147 of the 1961 Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Noble Consolidated Glazings Limited, ... vs Dcit, Chennai on 27 July, 2017

It would be ludicrous to suggest that while the amount/s retained has accrued as income to the assessee under the accounting principles or under company law, has not under the income-tax law. Equally, that while the liability (in respect of the sums retained) stands accrued to the assessee's customers, it has not accrued as income to the assessee. Unless, therefore, it is shown that there is no accrual, the revenue recognition in accounts, following accrual method, is to form the basis for reckoning revenue, i.e., the income accrued. The onus, therefore, is on the assessee, who is even otherwise obliged to prove its 11 ITA No.26/Mds/2017 (AY 2012-13) Noble Consolidated Glazings Ltd. v. Dy.CIT return of income and claims preferred thereby (refer: CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. R. Venakataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)), to show that, notwithstanding its unqualified accounts, to the extent retained, income has not accrued. This onus remains completely un-discharged.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next