(CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu

29 ITR 529Supreme Court of India1956#1814 most cited

What is (CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu authority for?

The assessee bears the onus to establish any claim for exemption, including agricultural income, by providing proper evidence and materials. The assessing officer is not primarily burdened with proving the assessee's claims.

63

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu · 29 ITR 529 · onus of proof · burden to prove exemption · agricultural income · assessee's responsibility · proper evidence · establishing claims · exempt income · primary burden on assessee

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ADSection 68

Issues it is cited on

section 148(1)section 31paper companysection 251(2)share capital and share premiumsource of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorlive linksection 251(1)(a)admission of additional evidenceentry operatoraddition u/s 68

Judgments citing (CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu

GYAN PRAKASH TIWARI,RAJGARH vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 563/IND/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Boradgyan Prakash Tiwari, Income Tax Officer, Talab Mohalla Chhapiheda, Shajapur Vs. Rajgarh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abupt8470C Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Nerkar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…t of the country's GDP. AO is mandated by law to see evidences before arriving at conclusion. No where in Income Tax Act, 1961 says that for agricultural income, AO needs no evidence. It has been held by the Apex Court in CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu (1956) 29 ITR 529 (SC) that the onus lies on the assessee who claims exemption to establish it. Therefore, as appellant had failed to submit evidence in support of sale of agricultural produce and expenditure incurred for the agricultural activity, his argument that Rs. Rs.3,00,000/-deposited as cash are from agricultural source is rejected. The appellant had sta…

SH. RAJBIR SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-5(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition of Rs 7

ITA 576/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144

…out and sale of the agriculture produce and the onus is clearly on the assessee to file necessary documentation in support thereof and in this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. R. Venkataswamy Naidu(1956) 29 ITR 529 as well as decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Sri Ranganatha Enterprises Vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 568 and it was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that mere ownership of agriculture land is not sufficient to prove that agriculture income has been earned. It was submitted that where the stand of the assessee is accepted,…

RAM LAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WD, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no order as to costs

ITA 265/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…ome of the assessee. This AO is mandated by law to see evidences before arriving at conclusion. No where in Income Tax Act, 1961 says that for agricultural income, AO needs no evidence. It has been held by the Apex Court in CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu (1956) 29 ITR 529 (SC) that the onus lies on the assessee who claims exemption to establish it Therefore, as appellant had failed to submit evidence in support of sale of agricultural produce and expenditure incurred for the agricultural activity, cash deposited are from agricultural source is rejected. In the result, appeal filed by appellant is dismissed.’’ 2.3…

DHARAMPAL SHARMA,PAPDAHANDINAWRANGPUR vs. ITO, JEYPORE WARD, JEYPORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 197/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year :2017-18 Dharmpal Sharma, At/Po Dharmpal Sharma, At/Po- Vs. Income Tax Officer, Jeypore Income Tax Officer, Jeypore Papdahandi Nabrangpur, Ward, Jeypore Ward, Jeypore Dist: Koraput Dist: Koraput-764071 Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Ahmps 4465 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 5/8/ /2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 5/8 /8/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

…he Assessing Officer has accepted the same. It was the submission that the addition as made by the ld CIT(A) of Rs.16,37,916/- is liable to be upheld. Ld Sr DR has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Venkataswamy Naidu, 29 ITR 529 (SC) to support his argument that the assessee has to place before the Income tax Authorities proper materials which will enable them to come to a conclusion that the income which is sought to be assessed, as agricultural income. It is not for the income tax authorities to prove that it is not agricultural income. He vehemently supported the order…

CHATHANKANDATH USHA,KOOTANAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 605/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. Jamuna Devi, Sr.D.R
Section 250

…kandath Usha, Kootanad Page 4 of 5 ((CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC) (also see: Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC); and which can further only be on the basis of proper materials (CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). Further, the same would extend to the entire income claimed exempt. The Tribunal in the case of the assessee’s daughter (ITA No. 26 & 27/Coch/2022 dated 02.1.2023), as indeed in some others, allowed the assessee benefit by throwing this primary burden on the AO, contrary to the settled principles of law. The matter was accordingly heard at…

DR. C USHA,PALAKKAD vs. ITO WARD-3, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 657/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmidr. C. Usha Income Tax Officer Modern Hospital Ward -3, Palakkad Guruvayur Road, Koottanad Vs. Palakkad 679533 [Pan:Aafpu8363H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

…in the intimate know of its affairs ((CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)(also see: Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC);and which can further only be on the basis of proper materials (CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). Further, the same would extend to the entire income claimed exempt. The Tribunal in the case of the assessee’s daughter 7 Dr. C. UshaModern Hospital v. Income Tax Officer (ITA No. 26 & 27/Coch/2022 dated 02.1.2023), as indeed in some others, allowed the assessee benefit by throwing this primary burden on the AO, contrary to the settled prin…

CARMEL CONVENT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, TRIVANDRAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

ITA 689/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…on the assessee, case law on which is legion (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC)); and which can further only be on the basis of proper materials (CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). The law gets more strict in case of exemption provisions (H.E. Nizam Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 582 (SC); CIT v. Joseph John [1968] 67 ITR 74 (SC)). In Udaipur Sahkari Upbhokta Thok Bhandar Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 315 ITR 21 (SC), it stands clarified that the onus to show that it’s claim/s falls within the four corners of the…

KANDATHIL JEWELLERS,KERALA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INGTL. TXAN, KERALA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 874/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Jyothison J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 148(1)Section 44A

…preferred thereby, is on the assessee (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)(also see: Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC);and which can further only be on the basis of proper materials (CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). The objection to adoption of a higher net profit rate of 5% (of sales) for AY 2019-20, as against at 2% for the preceding years, apparently appealing, is found as without merit in the given facts and circumstances of the case. To begin with, the ITA Nos. 872-874/Coch/2022 (AYs.: 2015-16, 16-17 & 19-20) Mytheenkunju Muhammed Kunju v. Dy. CIT…

KANDATHIL JEWELLERS,KERALA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INGTL. TXAN, KERALA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 873/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Jyothison J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 148(1)Section 44A

…preferred thereby, is on the assessee (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)(also see: Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC);and which can further only be on the basis of proper materials (CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). The objection to adoption of a higher net profit rate of 5% (of sales) for AY 2019-20, as against at 2% for the preceding years, apparently appealing, is found as without merit in the given facts and circumstances of the case. To begin with, the ITA Nos. 872-874/Coch/2022 (AYs.: 2015-16, 16-17 & 19-20) Mytheenkunju Muhammed Kunju v. Dy. CIT…

KANDATHIL JEWELLERS,KERALA vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 872/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Jyothison J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 148(1)Section 44A

…preferred thereby, is on the assessee (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)(also see: Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC);and which can further only be on the basis of proper materials (CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). The objection to adoption of a higher net profit rate of 5% (of sales) for AY 2019-20, as against at 2% for the preceding years, apparently appealing, is found as without merit in the given facts and circumstances of the case. To begin with, the ITA Nos. 872-874/Coch/2022 (AYs.: 2015-16, 16-17 & 19-20) Mytheenkunju Muhammed Kunju v. Dy. CIT…

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

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

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…on facts, in the intimate know of his affairs (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC);and which can further only be on the basis of proper materials (CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). And which remains un-discharged in the instant case. It is only thereafter that the onus shall, where the sale rates are still doubted by the Revenue, shift thereto. There is nothing on record to show that the purchase and sale of cashew kernels from/to sister concerns was of lower grades and, therefore, billed lower. The purchase and sale…

ITO WARD - 14(1), NEW DELHI vs. KAKA SERVICES PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5525/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…Vs CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC). • CGT Vs Dr. George Kuruvilla (1969) 74 ITR 328(SC). ITO vs. Kaka Services (P) Ltd. • CIT VS Joseph John (1967) 67 ITR 74 (SC). • RB Seth Champa Lal Ram Swarup Vs CIT (1965) 60 ITR 493 (SC). • CIT VS R Venkataswamy Naidu (1956) 29 ITR 529 (SC). 5.5 In this context it will be relevant to state the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: "where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the As…

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 140/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

…, clearly, is that the primary burden to prove it’s return of income, and the claims preferred thereby, is on the assessee, who only is in the intimate know of his affairs. (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)(also see: Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC). There can again be no quarrel on the proposition that the assessee can furnish only what is available with it, as surely law cannot impose an impossible burden. Page 10 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyr…

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 139/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

…, clearly, is that the primary burden to prove it’s return of income, and the claims preferred thereby, is on the assessee, who only is in the intimate know of his affairs. (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)(also see: Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC). There can again be no quarrel on the proposition that the assessee can furnish only what is available with it, as surely law cannot impose an impossible burden. Page 10 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyr…

PANDIT VETTRIVEL,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3 (4),, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 146/CHNY/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.146/Chny/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Shri Pandit Vettrivel Acit बनाम B-272, Ground Floor, B-Block Central Circle-3(4) Rear Flat, Greater Kailash Part I, Chennai-34. / Vs. New Delhi-110 048. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajzpp-4861-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…that the land in question is agricultural land is not delivered and therefore the sale of the land attracts the Income Tax Act and he has assessed the same as capital gains. The part F of the order discusses above the decision of the CIT vs Ventakaswamy Naidu 29 ITR 529 wherein it was held that the onus was on the appellant to prove that the income sought to be taxed was agricultural income exempt from taxation and other related case laws. In part G of the order the A.O. discusses about the materials relied upon by the appellant to substantiate his case for claim of agricultural income. The A.O. has point wise d…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. N.SASIKALA, BENGALURU

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3083/CHNY/2018[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 1996-97

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.3081/Chny/2018 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 1995-96) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.3083/Chny/2018 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year:1996-97) Dcit Smt. N.Sasikala बनाम/ Central Circle-2(2), 36, Poes Garden Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Amnps-6598-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit) - Ld. Dr !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T.Vasudevan, (Advocate) Ld.Ar

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri T.Vasudevan, (Advocate) Ld.AR
Section 143(3)

…The assessee did not furnish any evidence to substantiate her claim of agricultural income though the onus of proof lies with the assessee. 3.2 The ld.CIT(A) did not consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. .R.Venkataswamy Naidu (29 ITR 529) wherein it was held that the assessee had to put before the authorities proper materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion that the income which was sought to be assessed was agricultural income and it was not for the authorities to prove that it was not agricultural income. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred· in allowing assessee's appeal…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. N.SASIKALA, BENGALURU

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3081/CHNY/2018[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.3081/Chny/2018 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 1995-96) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.3083/Chny/2018 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year:1996-97) Dcit Smt. N.Sasikala बनाम/ Central Circle-2(2), 36, Poes Garden Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Amnps-6598-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit) - Ld. Dr !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T.Vasudevan, (Advocate) Ld.Ar

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri T.Vasudevan, (Advocate) Ld.AR
Section 143(3)

…The assessee did not furnish any evidence to substantiate her claim of agricultural income though the onus of proof lies with the assessee. 3.2 The ld.CIT(A) did not consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. .R.Venkataswamy Naidu (29 ITR 529) wherein it was held that the assessee had to put before the authorities proper materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion that the income which was sought to be assessed was agricultural income and it was not for the authorities to prove that it was not agricultural income. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred· in allowing assessee's appeal…

OM PARKASH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 AAYAKAR BHAWAN JALANDHAR

ITA/338/2019HC Punjab & Haryana30 Mar 2022

Bench: MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA,MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)Section 44A

…ed that where a party is expected to be in possession of evidence but fails to produce the same, an adverse inference has to be drawn. Reference can be made to the law laid down in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. R. Venkata Swamy Naidu (1956) 29 ITR 529 (SC), wherein Apex Court held that - “10. The assessee was solely responsible for the paucity of these materials inasmuch as it did not furnish any materials to DEEPAK KUMAR 2022.04.19 16:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document ITA No.338 of 2019 (O&M) 6 the Income-tax Officer in spite of the latter having given it an adjournment for the…

KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-14(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 9357/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…28 (SC)  There was no cash deposit • CIT V Joseph John (1967) 67 in the bank accounts of ITR 74 (SC) the parties from share • RB Seth Champa Lal Swarup capital received(Page 38 – V CIT (1965) 60 ITR 493 (SC) CIT(A) order). • CIT V R Venkataswamy Naidu (1956) 29 ITR 529 (SC) List of case laws relied upon by • Sreelekha Banerjee V CIT CIT(A) (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) • AnrajNarainDass V CIT • MoD Creatiosn Pvt Ltd V (1951) 20 ITR 562 (Punj.) Income Tax Officer • A.D. Jayaveerapandia Nadar (2013) 354 ITR 282 V CIT (1964) 54 ITR 401 (Delhi) (Mad.) • CIT V Kamdhenu Steel • Shankar Industries V CIT and Alloys Ltd and (19…

ITO WARD - 14(2), NEW DELHI vs. KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 9287/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…28 (SC)  There was no cash deposit • CIT V Joseph John (1967) 67 in the bank accounts of ITR 74 (SC) the parties from share • RB Seth Champa Lal Swarup capital received(Page 38 – V CIT (1965) 60 ITR 493 (SC) CIT(A) order). • CIT V R Venkataswamy Naidu (1956) 29 ITR 529 (SC) List of case laws relied upon by • Sreelekha Banerjee V CIT CIT(A) (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) • AnrajNarainDass V CIT • MoD Creatiosn Pvt Ltd V (1951) 20 ITR 562 (Punj.) Income Tax Officer • A.D. Jayaveerapandia Nadar (2013) 354 ITR 282 V CIT (1964) 54 ITR 401 (Delhi) (Mad.) • CIT V Kamdhenu Steel • Shankar Industries V CIT and Alloys Ltd and (19…

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4