https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285688 A claimed royalty deduction could not be refused merely on suspicion that the right stood in the assessee's wife's name as a benamidar. The royalty payment itself was undisputed, and the revenue's disallowance rested only on an unsupported inference. In the absence of evidence proving benami ownership, the apparent title could not be displaced simply because no proof was produced that the property came from stridhan funds. The principle applied is that the apparent state of affairs is presumed real unless the contrary is proved, and the burden lay on the revenue to establish benami ownership before denying the deduction. en-us Wed, 27 Nov 1935 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jan 2020 11:36:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285688 A claimed royalty deduction could not be refused merely on suspicion that the right stood in the assessee's wife's name as a benamidar. The royalty payment itself was undisputed, and the revenue's disallowance rested only on an unsupported inference. In the absence of evidence proving benami ownership, the apparent title could not be displaced simply because no proof was produced that the property came from stridhan funds. The principle applied is that the apparent state of affairs is presumed real unless the contrary is proved, and the burden lay on the revenue to establish benami ownership before denying the deduction. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 Nov 1935 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285688