Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras vs R. Venkataswamy Naidu on 17 February, 1956
"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.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bihar ... vs Sri Ramakrishna Deo on 14 October, 1958
In the other case, CIT v.
Ramakrishna Deo [1956] 35 ITR 312 (SC) it was held by the Hon'ble
Court that a person who claimed the benefit to an exemption has to
establish it. Thus, burden of proof is on assessee to prove that his
income is agricultural income which is exempt from tax.
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sai University Act, 2018
1