Sri Ranganatha Enterprises v. Commissioner

232 ITR 568Reported decision1998#23810 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 357,294 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 143personsection 14document

Judgments citing Sri Ranganatha Enterprises v. Commissioner

Suresh Kumar Saini, Jaipur vs. NFAC, Delhi

16. For the foregoing discussion and findings, this appeal deserves to be allowed

ITA 1256/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…he had agriculture income to the tune of Rs. 7,23,550/-. 15 Sh. Prem Chand Gupta vs. ITO In support of his reasons, the Assessing Officer relied on decision of 28 January, 1998, in the case titled as Sri Ranganatha Enterprises vs Commissioner of income Tax, 232 ITR 568 , wherein it was held that the burden lies on the assessee to prove that the income derived by him was agricultural income. When the assessee was called upon the lead evidence in support of the above said claim, he produced before the Assessing Officer land record, invoice regarding sale of agriculture produce, expenses incurred on cultivation, a…

Prem Chand Gupta, Alwar vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Alwar

16. For the foregoing discussion and findings, this appeal deserves to be allowed

ITA 1251/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…he had agriculture income to the tune of Rs. 7,23,550/-. 15 Sh. Prem Chand Gupta vs. ITO In support of his reasons, the Assessing Officer relied on decision of 28 January, 1998, in the case titled as Sri Ranganatha Enterprises vs Commissioner of income Tax, 232 ITR 568 , wherein it was held that the burden lies on the assessee to prove that the income derived by him was agricultural income. When the assessee was called upon the lead evidence in support of the above said claim, he produced before the Assessing Officer land record, invoice regarding sale of agriculture produce, expenses incurred on cultivation, a…

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

…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, then it will lead to conclusion that all the agriculture land yields profit and no loss is ever incurred by any agr…

Sri Ranganatha Enterprises v. Commissioner (232 ITR 568) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax