CIT v. Ramkrishna Deo

35 ITR 312Supreme Court of India1959#1354 most cited

What is CIT v. Ramkrishna Deo authority for?

The burden of proving that a particular income is exempt from taxation, or is not taxable, lies on the assessee. To claim an exemption or a deduction, the assessee must provide proper materials to establish eligibility.

84

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ramakrishna Deo · 35 ITR 312 SC · burden of proof · onus on assessee · income tax exemption · proving eligibility · section 10 exemption · section 54F deduction · section 80P deduction · agricultural income exemption

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 10Section 139(1)Section 147Section 54FSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)(i)

Issues it is cited on

nfac

Judgments citing CIT v. Ramkrishna Deo

POLICE KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA GONDIA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, GONDIA

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 263/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)

…rty claiming the exemption to provide the proof for its eligibility to the same. It is a well settled law that the burden of proving that the income is not taxable lies upon the assessee Parimisetti Seetharamamma Vs CIT 57 ITR 532 (SC), CIT Vs Ramakrishna Deo 35 ITR 312 (SC). Further, the Supreme Court in respect of Commissioner of Customs Vs Dileep Kumar & Company in Civil Appeal Number 3327/2007 has held that exemptions have to be interpreted very strictly and onus of proving the eligibility for an exemption rests on the assessee. With appellant not having discharged the said onus, there lies no burden on reven…

OMWATI,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 3643/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: HeardITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 3643/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Omwati, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 316, Village-Noornagar, Ward-2(2)(1), Sihani Gods Valley Faram, Ghaziabad-201001 Ghaziabad-201003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aegpo9325L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.06.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1065625654(1) In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…burden is on the revenue to show that particular receipt is liable to be taxed as income under the statute, but the onus of showing that a particular income is exempt from taxation, lies on the assessee." Similarly in the case of CIT v. Ramakrishna Deo [1959] 35 ITR 312 (SC)], the Apex Court held that, "The onus of showing that particular item of income is exempt under any clauses of section 10 is on the assessee." The appellant has not adduced any documentary evidence to demonstrate that she had purchased land on which a residential property was constructed within the time limits laid down u/s 54F of the I T Act…

VISHAN RAJ JAIN (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 193/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Vishan Raj Jain (Huf) Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) 6-3-650, G7 6-3-650, G7, Aaykar Bhawan Maheswari Chambers Opp:L.B.Stadium Somajiguda Basheer Bagh Telangana-500 082 Hyderabad-500 004

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ust be established by those who seek it, the onus therefore, lies on them. In order to claim the exemption from payment of income tax, the assessee had to put before the Income Tax authorities proper materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion. (35 ITR 312 (SC)). No part of the concurrent findings recorded by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A), is disputed by the assessee. Further, she has not placed any material before us to dislodge the findings recorded by the Lower authorities. Thus, the above actions of the assessee are nothing, but a premeditated, contumacious conduct, surreptitiously done for specific…

SHRI MAGANBHAI BACHUBHAI RUPAPARA,SHAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rashmin Vekariya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 68

…as to justify his alleged agricultural income. Maganbhai Bachibhai Rupapara vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 3. In the case of agricultural income the entire onus lies with the assessee, as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V Ramkrishna Deo 35 ITR 312. Hon’ble court held as under “It is for the assessee to prove that income sought to be taxed is agricultural income exempt from taxation under the Income Tax Act.” 1. In the light of the aforesaid discussion on the facts of the case I have no reason to disagree with the order passed by the AO and hence his order in treating the agricultural incom…

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 706/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

…must be established by those who seek it, the onus therefore, lies on them. In order to claim the exemption from payment of income tax, the assessee had to put before the Income Tax authorities proper material which would enable them to come to a conclusion (35 ITR 312) (SC). No part of the concurrent findings recorded by the AO and the Ld. CIT (A) is disputed by the assessee. Further, she has not placed any material before us to dislodge the findings recorded by the Lower authorities. Thus, the above 20 Sangeeta B. Mangrule A,Y. 2015-16 actions of the assessee are nothing, but a premeditated, contumacious cond…

ARAVIND MODI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 11(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2738/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.A.Sundararajan,Addl.C.I.T
Section 10(38)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" एवं एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.2738/Chny/2018 Assessment year : 2014-15 Shri Aravind Modi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 147,Broadway,George Town, Non-Corporate ward 11(1), Chennai 600 001. 2nd floor, BSNL Building, Greames Road, Chennai 600 006. [ PAN AFTPA 6764 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.A.Su…

VIDHYA,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 9,, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly

ITA 2222/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No.2222/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vidhya, The Income Tax Officer, No. 704, B-Block, 1088, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-9(5), Poonamallee High Road, Chennai. Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Acfpv 9837R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (%&यथ'/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…tablished by those who seek it, the onus therefore lies on the assessee. In order to claim the exemption from payment of income tax, the assessee had to put before the Income Tax authorities proper materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion. (35 ITR 312 (SC)).Thus, the AO must keep in mind that the onus of proving the exemption rests on the assessee. If the AO does have any evidence to the contrary, it is to be put to the assessee for his rebuttal. The internal communications of the Revenue are evidences for drawing an opinion on possible wrong claims but they are not the final evidence. The…

RAKHEE JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLCE 17(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1375/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1375/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Rakhee Jain, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.35, Perumal Mudali Street, Vs. Income Tax, Sowcarpet, Non-Corporate Circle -17(1), Chennai – 600 070. Chennai.

For Respondent: Shri A R V Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…blished by those who seek it, the onus therefore lies on the assessee. In order to claim the exemption from payment of income tax, the assessee had to put before the Income Tax authorities proper materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion. (35 ITR 312 (SC)).Thus, the AO must keep in mind that the onus of proving the exemption rests on the assessee. If the AO does have any evidence to the contrary, it is to be put to the assessee for his rebuttal. The internal communications of the Revenue are evidences for drawing an opinion on possible wrong claims but they are not the final evidence. The…

M.MATHIVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 5, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly

ITA 1166/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1166/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri. M. Mathivanan, Assistant Commissioner Of Income Old No. 3, New No. 5,Bharathiyar Street, Vs. Tax, Vivekananda Nagar,Kodungalyur, Non-Corporate Circle -5, Chennai – 600 118. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CA
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…tablished by those who seek it, the onus therefore lies on the assessee. In order to claim the exemption from payment of income tax, the assessee had to put before the Income Tax authorities proper materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion. (35 ITR 312 (SC)).Thus, the AO must keep in mind that the onus of proving the exemption rests on the assessee. If the AO does have any evidence to the contrary, it is to be put to the assessee for his rebuttal. The internal communications of the Revenue are evidences for drawing an opinion on possible wrong claims but they are not the final evidence. The…

SUNIL CHOPRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly

ITA 2923/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No.2923/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Sunil Chopra, The Income Tax Officer, No.140, Linghi Chetty Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward-12(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri N.Vijay Kumar, C.A %&For Respondent: Shri A R V Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…tablished by those who seek it, the onus therefore lies on the assessee. In order to claim the exemption from payment of income tax, the assessee had to put before the Income Tax authorities proper materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion. (35 ITR 312 (SC)).Thus, the AO must keep in mind that the onus of proving the exemption rests on the assessee. If the AO does have any evidence to the contrary, it is to be put to the assessee for his rebuttal. The internal communications of the Revenue are evidences for drawing an opinion on possible wrong claims but they are not the final evidence. The…

PINKY DEVI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD - 5(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly

ITA 2242/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No.2242/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Pinky Devi, The Income Tax Officer, No.97, Narayanamudali Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle -5(4), Sowcarpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 079. [Pan: Alxpp 7284K] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Appellant: ShriS.Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…tablished by those who seek it, the onus therefore lies on the assessee. In order to claim the exemption from payment of income tax, the assessee had to put before the Income Tax authorities proper materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion. (35 ITR 312 (SC)).Thus, the AO must keep in mind that the onus of proving the exemption rests on the assessee. If the AO does have any evidence to the contrary, it is to be put to the assessee for his rebuttal. The internal communications of the Revenue are evidences for drawing an opinion on possible wrong claims but they are not the final evidence. The…

AARTHI MAHESJ JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 9(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly

ITA 1167/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1167/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 Aarthi Mahesh Jain, Income Tax Officer, No. 20, Briethapet Road, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 9(1), Vepery, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Ajfpa 1318P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (%&यथ'/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CA
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…tablished by those who seek it, the onus therefore lies on the assessee. In order to claim the exemption from payment of income tax, the assessee had to put before the Income Tax authorities proper materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion. (35 ITR 312 (SC)).Thus, the A O must keep in mind that the onus of proving the exemption rests on the assessee. If the AO does have any evidence to the contrary, it is to be put to the assessee for his rebuttal. The internal communications of the Revenue are evidences for drawing an opinion on possible wrong claims but they are not the final evidence. The…

SHRI PERIASAMY VENKATESH KUMAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 8 (5),, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for

ITA 2144/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 2144/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri. Periasamy Venkatesh Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, No. 9, Kgs Enclave, Chidambaram St., Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(5), Crm Nagar, Karayanchavadi, Chennai. Chennai – 600 056. [Pan: Afcpv 8727Q] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri. J. Sudarsan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 148

…on of Rs. 8,74,570/-. The assessee pleads that the income chargeable to tax has not exceeded the taxable limit in his case. In such case, the assessee had to put before the income tax authority proper material which would enable them to come to a conclusion (35 ITR 312 SC). In this case, the assessee pleaded that since, he is an individual and having closed the business, he could not get any documents from his bank, share broking agent etc. and submitted that an opportunity may be granted to explain the impugned transactions before the AO. Since, the onus is on the assessee to place the relevant material bef…

PRAVEEN KUMAR OTMALJI (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(50, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly

ITA 3143/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

Section 10

…ablished by those who seek it, the onus therefore lies on the assessee. In order to claim the exemption from payment of income tax, the assessee had to put before the Income Tax authorities proper materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion. ( 35 ITR 312 (SC) ).Thus, the AO must keep in mind that the onus of proving the exemption rests on the assessee. If the AO does have any evidence to the contrary, it is to be put to the assessee for his rebuttal. The internal communications of the Revenue are evidences for drawing an opinion on possible wrong claims but they are not the final evidence. The…

MAHESH KUMAR (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 11(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the penalty appeal of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2392/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2563/Chny/2017 & 2392/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2014-15

For Respondent: Ms.R.Anita,C.I.T, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ablished by those who seek it, the onus therefore lies on the assessee. In order to claim the exemption from payment of income tax, the assessee had to put before the Income Tax authorities proper materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion. (35 ITR 312 (SC)).Thus, the AO must keep in mind that the onus of proving the exemption rests on the assessee. If the AO does have any evidence to the contrary, it is to be put to the assessee for his rebuttal. The internal communications of the Revenue are evidences for drawing an opinion on possible wrong claims but they are not the final evidence. The rel…

MAHESH KUMAR(HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 11(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the penalty appeal of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2563/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2563/Chny/2017 & 2392/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2014-15

For Respondent: Ms.R.Anita,C.I.T, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ablished by those who seek it, the onus therefore lies on the assessee. In order to claim the exemption from payment of income tax, the assessee had to put before the Income Tax authorities proper materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion. (35 ITR 312 (SC)).Thus, the AO must keep in mind that the onus of proving the exemption rests on the assessee. If the AO does have any evidence to the contrary, it is to be put to the assessee for his rebuttal. The internal communications of the Revenue are evidences for drawing an opinion on possible wrong claims but they are not the final evidence. The rel…

PHONEIX MEDICAL SYSTEMS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1303/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, JCIT
Section 2ASection 35Section 37

…edings U/s.143(3) for the assessment year 2015-16, which was completed on 26.12.2017. In order to claim the exemption from payment of Income Tax, the assessee has to comply with the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules made there under and establish it [35 ITR 312(SC)] before the Income Tax Authorities. In this case, it is clear from the above facts and circumstances that the assessee has not laid the required material before the competent authorities in time and probably because of that they could not entertain/consider it, etc. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of this case, as extracted above, are t…

ANKITA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in the case of Smt

ITA 3142/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3142/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, J.C.I.T, D.R
Section 10(38)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3142/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Smt.Ankita, Income Tax Officer, Door No.1089,B-1201, Non Corporate Ward-10(1), Sankheshwara Serenity, Room No.619,New Block, Poonamalle High Road,Vepery, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [PAN: ALSPA 9931 D] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent) : अपीलाथ& क) ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.I.Dinesh,Advocate, : '…

MOHAN KUMAR AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 9(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in the case of Smt

ITA 1666/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3142/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, J.C.I.T, D.R
Section 10(38)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3142/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Smt.Ankita, Income Tax Officer, Door No.1089,B-1201, Non Corporate Ward-10(1), Sankheshwara Serenity, Room No.619,New Block, Poonamalle High Road,Vepery, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [PAN: ALSPA 9931 D] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent) : अपीलाथ& क) ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.I.Dinesh,Advocate, : '…

MR. GANPATHRAJ & SONS,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2520/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2520/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Ganpathraj & Sons, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.30, Market Street, Perambur, Non-Corporate Ward-10(2), Chennai – 600 029. Chennai. [Pan: Aaahj 2810H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ar V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. Jayaraman:

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10Section 68

…established by those who seek it, the onus therefore lies on the assessee. In order to claim the exemption from payment of income tax, the assessee had to put before the Income Tax authorities proper materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion. (35 ITR 312 (SC)).Thus, the AO must keep in mind that the onus of proving the exemption rests on the assessee. If the AO does have any evidence to the contrary, it is to be put to the assessee for his rebuttal. The internal communications of the Revenue are evidences for drawing an opinion on possible wrong claims but they are not the final evidence. The rele…

Showing 1–20 of 84 · Page 1 of 5

CIT v. Ramkrishna Deo (35 ITR 312) — Cited in 84 Judgments | BharatTax