Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v. CIT

16 ITR 330Reported decision1948#5779 most cited

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 115ad section 2(1a)section 2(1)section 60 section 63 section 2(14)(iii)section 115a section 65 transfer of capital asset section 2(14)date of transfer put to use

Judgments citing Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v. CIT

SWAPNIL CHANDRABHAN KALWANE,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, AURANGABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1432/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1432/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri. Swapnil C. Kalwane, Gajgaon, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad .......अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan : Arrpk3148B

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148

…is issue in their order while repelling the contention of assessee :- "7. We have considered the rival submissions carefully as well as relevant material on record and find force in the contention of Ld. DR. The Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan Vs. CIT 16 ITR 330 had observed that burden of proving that a particular income was exempt lies on the person who claims the same and this rule has been followed by various courts later on also. From the particulars submitted by the assessee before Assessing Officer it becomes clear that no expenditure was shown to have been incurred on labour for ploughing of land,…

DY CIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. MRS. NITTA VINODKUMAR JATIYA , MUMBAI

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

ITA 95/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(1) Vs. Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Room No. 676B, 6Th Jatiya, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1, Pearl Mansion (N), Mk Road, Mumbai – 91, Marine Lines, 400020. Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Accpj8343D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Sanjiv Jain. Dr Respondent By : Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Sanjiv Jain. DRFor Respondent: Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54B

…iya, Mumbai. None of the vegetables mentioned by the asse,ssee are grown round the year as claimed. There are barely any labour charges shown by the assessee. The expenses claimed to be borne by the assessee are insignificant In Mustafa Ali Khan vs. C!T(1948) 16 ITR 330(PC), the court held that income from sale of forest trees, fruits and flowers growing on land naturally and spontaneously and without the intervention of human agency is not agriculture income. Thus the mango sale is not agricultural income. Only income from basic operations of cultivation land and requiring the expenditure of human skill and labo…

SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR SEKHARI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1767/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…he appellant did not provide any detail whatsoever relating to basic operations, such as tilling, sowing, irrigation, harvesting etc, being performed on the lands owned by her at village Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question…

SMT POOJA SEKHARI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1766/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…he appellant did not provide any detail whatsoever relating to basic operations, such as tilling, sowing, irrigation, harvesting etc, being performed on the lands owned by her at village Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question…

SHRI GAURAV SEKHARI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1765/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…he appellant did not provide any detail whatsoever relating to basic operations, such as tilling, sowing, irrigation, harvesting etc, being performed on the lands owned by her at village Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question…

SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5378/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…he appellant did not provide any detail whatsoever relating to basic operations, such as tilling, sowing, irrigation, harvesting etc, being performed on the lands owned by her at village Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question…

SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5377/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…he appellant did not provide any detail whatsoever relating to basic operations, such as tilling, sowing, irrigation, harvesting etc, being performed on the lands owned by her at village Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question…

M/S. KEERTHI INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5375/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…he appellant did not provide any detail whatsoever relating to basic operations, such as tilling, sowing, irrigation, harvesting etc, being performed on the lands owned by her at village Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question…

M/S. NOVA INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5364/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…he appellant did not provide any detail whatsoever relating to basic operations, such as tilling, sowing, irrigation, harvesting etc, being performed on the lands owned by her at village Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question…

SMT. SHOBHA SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5362/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…he appellant did not provide any detail whatsoever relating to basic operations, such as tilling, sowing, irrigation, harvesting etc, being performed on the lands owned by her at village Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question…

SMT. PUJA SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5361/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…he appellant did not provide any detail whatsoever relating to basic operations, such as tilling, sowing, irrigation, harvesting etc, being performed on the lands owned by her at village Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question…

SMT. PUJA SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5360/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…he appellant did not provide any detail whatsoever relating to basic operations, such as tilling, sowing, irrigation, harvesting etc, being performed on the lands owned by her at village Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question…

SH. KAPIL SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5315/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…he appellant did not provide any detail whatsoever relating to basic operations, such as tilling, sowing, irrigation, harvesting etc, being performed on the lands owned by her at village Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question…

SH. KAPIL SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5314/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…he appellant did not provide any detail whatsoever relating to basic operations, such as tilling, sowing, irrigation, harvesting etc, being performed on the lands owned by her at village Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question…

SMT. AARTI SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5313/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…he appellant did not provide any detail whatsoever relating to basic operations, such as tilling, sowing, irrigation, harvesting etc, being performed on the lands owned by her at village Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question…

SMT. AARTI SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5312/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…he appellant did not provide any detail whatsoever relating to basic operations, such as tilling, sowing, irrigation, harvesting etc, being performed on the lands owned by her at village Rojka Gujar, As held by the Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v CIT 16 ITR 330 (PC) it was the appellant's burden to prove that exempt agricultural income was being earned. 7.14. In the case of Sarifabibi Mohammad Ibrahim v CIT 70 Taxman 301 (SC) /204 ITR 631 (sq, the Apex Court had this very issue before them and it was held by their Lordships: Para 9. Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question…

NITA JATIYA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL REANGE-7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1815/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Nitta Jatiya (Alias Nita Jatia) Dcit, Central Circle -7(1) 1, Pearl Mansion, 91, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai - 400 020 Pan No. Accpj8343D (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Ms. Snehal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…nd the year as claimed.  There are barely any labour charges shown by the assessee.  The expenses claimed to be borne by the assessee are insignificant. ITA No.1815/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 5 Nitta Jatiya Vs. DCIT, CC-7(1)  In Mustafa All Khan vs. CIT(1948) 16 ITR 330 (PC), the court held that income from sale of forest trees, fruits and flowers growing on land naturally and spontaneously and without the intervention of human agency is not agriculture income. Thus the mango sale is not agricultural income.  Only income from basic operations of cultivation land and requiring the expenditure of human skill and l…

THE ACIT,, KOTTAYAM vs. KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 441/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…ajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh (supra) before the Apex Court. In that case various trees grown spontaneously without any human aid and labour were sold. The Apex Court, after referring to the judgment of the Privy Council in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan vs CIT (1948) 16 ITR 330 found that the receipt on sale of such trees cannot be treated as agricultural income. The question, whether the trees grown spontaneously has no cost of acquisition was not raised by the assessee before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had 3 I.T.A. Nos.440&441/Coch/2018 no occasion to consider such a plea. Therefore, the contention of the…

THE ACIT,, KOTTAYAM vs. KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 440/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…ajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh (supra) before the Apex Court. In that case various trees grown spontaneously without any human aid and labour were sold. The Apex Court, after referring to the judgment of the Privy Council in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan vs CIT (1948) 16 ITR 330 found that the receipt on sale of such trees cannot be treated as agricultural income. The question, whether the trees grown spontaneously has no cost of acquisition was not raised by the assessee before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had 3 I.T.A. Nos.440&441/Coch/2018 no occasion to consider such a plea. Therefore, the contention of the…

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. SMT. SEEMA BISHNOI, PANCHKULA

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 103/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Ito Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula

For Appellant: Shri. A.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G.S. Phani Kishore, CI TDR

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…isallowed the claim of exemption amounting to Rs. 61,13,24,357/- which was added back to the taxable income of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws : • Rasiklal Chimanlal Nagri Vs. CIT, 56 ITR 608 • Raja Mustafa Ali Khan Vs. CIT, 16 ITR 330 • CIT Vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Suhas Roy, 32 ITR 466 (SC) • State of UP Vs. Nand Kumar Aggarwal, AIR 1998 SC 473, 476 • Vallabdas Narainji Vs. Development Officer, AIR 1929 PC 163 • Tea Estates India Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax • CIT Vs. Gemini Pictures, 220 ITR 43 • Sarifabibi’s Case [ 1993] 204 ITR 631 (SC) • CWT Vs. Officer-in Charg…