(CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu

29 ITR 529Supreme Court of India1956#1792 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 366,339 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

Natbar Nath, Koraput vs. ITO, Jeypore

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

ITA 206/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 44A

…the submissions of the assessee observed that it was a settled principle of law that the burden is on the assessee to prove that the income was agricultural income. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Genkateswamy Naidu, 29 ITR 529 (SC), wherein, it has been held that in order to claim an income which the assessee considers as agricultural income, the assessee has to put before the authorities materials which will enable them to come to a conclusion that the income which was sought to be assessed was agricultural income. It was not for the authorities to prove that it was no…

Bhagaban Nath, Koraput vs. ITO, Jeypore

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

ITA 205/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

…he submissions of the assessee observed that it was a settled principle of law that the burden is on the assessee to prove that the income was agricultural income. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Genkateswamy Naidu, 29 ITR 529 (SC), wherein, it has been held that in order to claim an income which the assessee considers as agricultural income, the assessee has to put before the authorities materials which will enable them to come to a conclusion that the income which was sought to be assessed was agricultural income. It was not for the authorities to prove that it was…

M/S Binary Semantics Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5679/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-5679/Del/2013 (Assessment Year 2003-04)

Section 35DSection 41

…1 ITA NO. 5679.DEL.13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-5679/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04) Binary Semantics Ltd. vs ITO A-11, 1st Floor, Meer Singh Complex Ward 3(3), Kapashera New Delhi New Delhi (RESPONDENT) AABCB0652N (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. Sanjay Kalra, CA Respondent by Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement 20.10.2016 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 1/7/2013 passed by CIT(A)…