https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18133 Section 9(2)(iii) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 was attracted where property stood in the joint names of the assessee and his wife and no acceptable evidence showed that the wife had independent funds for the purchase. The person claiming exclusion had to place material on record proving that the acquisition funds did not proceed from the assessee. The Tribunal erred in shifting the burden to the Revenue and in disturbing the concurrent factual findings of the assessing authority and first appellate authority, so its contrary finding was set aside and the Revenue succeeded. en-us Wed, 20 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:22:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18133 Section 9(2)(iii) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 was attracted where property stood in the joint names of the assessee and his wife and no acceptable evidence showed that the wife had independent funds for the purchase. The person claiming exclusion had to place material on record proving that the acquisition funds did not proceed from the assessee. The Tribunal erred in shifting the burden to the Revenue and in disturbing the concurrent factual findings of the assessing authority and first appellate authority, so its contrary finding was set aside and the Revenue succeeded. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18133