86. In CIT v. Subrata Roy

375 ITR 207Reported decision#12709 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing 86. In CIT v. Subrata Roy

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1217/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…ssessment. In the present case, the AO has relied on the statement of a third party to hold that the appellant is the owner of RAL without brining any concrete and tangible material to prove the same. This is not permissible in law. 86. In CIT Vs Subrata Roy 375 ITR 207 it was held that the primary burden to bring to tax the amounts on the ground the transaction is a deemed dividend (when it is not so otherwise) is on revenue. To discharge that burden, the revenue cannot rest content on surmises and assumptions; it should prove them on facts and materials on record. 87. In Baldev Singh & Co Vs CIT 384 ITR 91, a…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1216/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…ssessment. In the present case, the AO has relied on the statement of a third party to hold that the appellant is the owner of RAL without brining any concrete and tangible material to prove the same. This is not permissible in law. 86. In CIT Vs Subrata Roy 375 ITR 207 it was held that the primary burden to bring to tax the amounts on the ground the transaction is a deemed dividend (when it is not so otherwise) is on revenue. To discharge that burden, the revenue cannot rest content on surmises and assumptions; it should prove them on facts and materials on record. 87. In Baldev Singh & Co Vs CIT 384 ITR 91, a…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1215/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…ssessment. In the present case, the AO has relied on the statement of a third party to hold that the appellant is the owner of RAL without brining any concrete and tangible material to prove the same. This is not permissible in law. 86. In CIT Vs Subrata Roy 375 ITR 207 it was held that the primary burden to bring to tax the amounts on the ground the transaction is a deemed dividend (when it is not so otherwise) is on revenue. To discharge that burden, the revenue cannot rest content on surmises and assumptions; it should prove them on facts and materials on record. 87. In Baldev Singh & Co Vs CIT 384 ITR 91, a…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1214/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…ssessment. In the present case, the AO has relied on the statement of a third party to hold that the appellant is the owner of RAL without brining any concrete and tangible material to prove the same. This is not permissible in law. 86. In CIT Vs Subrata Roy 375 ITR 207 it was held that the primary burden to bring to tax the amounts on the ground the transaction is a deemed dividend (when it is not so otherwise) is on revenue. To discharge that burden, the revenue cannot rest content on surmises and assumptions; it should prove them on facts and materials on record. 87. In Baldev Singh & Co Vs CIT 384 ITR 91, a…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1213/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…ssessment. In the present case, the AO has relied on the statement of a third party to hold that the appellant is the owner of RAL without brining any concrete and tangible material to prove the same. This is not permissible in law. 86. In CIT Vs Subrata Roy 375 ITR 207 it was held that the primary burden to bring to tax the amounts on the ground the transaction is a deemed dividend (when it is not so otherwise) is on revenue. To discharge that burden, the revenue cannot rest content on surmises and assumptions; it should prove them on facts and materials on record. 87. In Baldev Singh & Co Vs CIT 384 ITR 91, a…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1212/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…ssessment. In the present case, the AO has relied on the statement of a third party to hold that the appellant is the owner of RAL without brining any concrete and tangible material to prove the same. This is not permissible in law. 86. In CIT Vs Subrata Roy 375 ITR 207 it was held that the primary burden to bring to tax the amounts on the ground the transaction is a deemed dividend (when it is not so otherwise) is on revenue. To discharge that burden, the revenue cannot rest content on surmises and assumptions; it should prove them on facts and materials on record. 87. In Baldev Singh & Co Vs CIT 384 ITR 91, a…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1211/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…ssessment. In the present case, the AO has relied on the statement of a third party to hold that the appellant is the owner of RAL without brining any concrete and tangible material to prove the same. This is not permissible in law. 86. In CIT Vs Subrata Roy 375 ITR 207 it was held that the primary burden to bring to tax the amounts on the ground the transaction is a deemed dividend (when it is not so otherwise) is on revenue. To discharge that burden, the revenue cannot rest content on surmises and assumptions; it should prove them on facts and materials on record. 87. In Baldev Singh & Co Vs CIT 384 ITR 91, a…

DCIT 28(3), Navi Mumbai vs. S.R.M Agro Foods, Navi Mumbai

ITA 7397/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mitesh ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 22(22)(e)Section 254(1)

…s not registered shareholder of the companies, so,the provisions of section 2(22)(e)were not applicable to it.The FAA has held that section had to be applied in the cases of the individual partners. 5.1.Here, we would like to refer to the case of Subrata Roy(375 ITR 207)of Hon’ble Delhi High Court.In that matter the Hon’ble Court has held as under: “Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, enacts that payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) made after May 31, 1987, but by wa…

86. In CIT v. Subrata Roy (375 ITR 207) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax