What is Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v. CIT authority for?

The burden of proving that income is exempt, specifically agricultural income, lies with the assessee claiming the exemption. The assessee must provide details of actual agricultural operations.

How many judgments cite Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v. CIT?

20 judgments on BharatTax cite Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v. CIT (16 ITR 330), spanning 2019 to 2022.

Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v. CIT (16 ITR 330)

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…