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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Ramkrishna Deo?

84 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ramkrishna Deo (35 ITR 312), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ramkrishna Deo come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 10, Section 139(1), Section 147, Section 54F, Section 80P.

CIT v. Ramkrishna Deo (35 ITR 312)

Sangeetha, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 6(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2660/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2657/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Smt. Khushbu Jain, No.31, Krishanappa Tank Street, Non Corporate Ward 5(1), 1St Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 079. Pan: Arcpk1200H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2659/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Smt. Nirmala Devi Suresh Kumar, Non Corporate Ward 5(2), No.41, Narayana Mudall Street, Chennai. Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. Pan: Aasps4466N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pr

Section 10(38)Section 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. This Tr…

Nirmala Devi Suresh Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2659/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2657/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Smt. Khushbu Jain, No.31, Krishanappa Tank Street, Non Corporate Ward 5(1), 1St Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 079. Pan: Arcpk1200H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2659/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Smt. Nirmala Devi Suresh Kumar, Non Corporate Ward 5(2), No.41, Narayana Mudall Street, Chennai. Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. Pan: Aasps4466N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pr

Section 10(38)Section 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. This Tr…

Jugrajji Babulal, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 4(5), Chennai

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

ITA 2658/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2657/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Smt. Khushbu Jain, No.31, Krishanappa Tank Street, Non Corporate Ward 5(1), 1St Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 079. Pan: Arcpk1200H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2659/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Smt. Nirmala Devi Suresh Kumar, Non Corporate Ward 5(2), No.41, Narayana Mudall Street, Chennai. Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. Pan: Aasps4466N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pr

Section 10(38)Section 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. This Tr…

Khushbu Jain, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2657/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2657/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Smt. Khushbu Jain, No.31, Krishanappa Tank Street, Non Corporate Ward 5(1), 1St Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 079. Pan: Arcpk1200H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2659/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Smt. Nirmala Devi Suresh Kumar, Non Corporate Ward 5(2), No.41, Narayana Mudall Street, Chennai. Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. Pan: Aasps4466N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pr

Section 10(38)Section 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. This Tr…

Petrofarms Limited, South 24 Parganas vs. ITO, Ward - 8(3), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 340/KOL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 340/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Petrofarms Limited Vs. I.T.O Ward 8(3), Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. Pan: Aabcp 5729K (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Sanjay Dixit, Cfa, Ld.Ar For The Respondent : Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit, Ld.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Dixit, CFA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143(3)

…s essentially used for storage of LPG and it cannot be categorized as Forest Land. What is to be considered for our purpose is whether the land in question was used to produce agricultural products. It has been held in the case of Rama Krishna Deo vs. CIT{SC) 35 ITR 312 2 3 M/s. Petrofarms Limited that income from sale of forest trees of spontaneous growth is not agricultural income, even if, assessee has incurred expenditure on its maintenance. In the case of appellant's case, there is no evidence of any expenditure on maintenance of agricultural products. The Apex Court, in the case of CIT vs. Raja Binoy Kuma…

Namratha, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 3108/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 3108/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ms. Namratha, Income Tax Officer, No.2, Chandrappa Mudali Vs. Non-Corporate Ward -5(2), Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 079. [Pan: Abcpn 6997J] (#$यथ&/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri. N. Vijaya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. Mathivanan, JCIT

Section 10(38)

…be 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 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. Fur…

Pramila Jain, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3067/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 3067/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. N. Vijaya Kumar, CA

Section 10(38)

…be 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 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 :-4-: an opinion on possible wrong claims but they are not the final evidenc…

Krishna Devi Agarwal, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 10(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1412/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathanandshri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1412/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Krishna Devi Agarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 9-A, Arihant Orchard, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward -10(3), 54, Flowers Road, Kilpauk, Chennai. Chennai – 600 010. [Pan: Aaqpk 7564H] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri. N. Vijaya Kumar, CA

Section 10(38)

…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 :-4-: materials which would enable 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 assesseefor 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. Furt…

Smt Urmila Ramesh, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are dismissed

ITA 2506/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. K. R. Narayan, JCIT

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 57

…the income-tax authorities. In CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR R 529 (SC), this principle was laid down with the observation that it is not for the income-tax authorities to prove that it is not agricultural income. In CIT v. Ramakrishna Deo [1959] 35 ITR 312 (SC), it was held that the law is well-established that it is for a person who claims exemption to establish it, and there is no reason why it should be otherwise when the exemption claimed is under the Act and that a person who claims the benefit of exemption has to establish it. 5.3.9 The Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF MADRAS in the case of Sri B. Ramach…

Smt Urmila Ramesh, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are dismissed

ITA 2505/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. K. R. Narayan, JCIT

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 57

…the income-tax authorities. In CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR R 529 (SC), this principle was laid down with the observation that it is not for the income-tax authorities to prove that it is not agricultural income. In CIT v. Ramakrishna Deo [1959] 35 ITR 312 (SC), it was held that the law is well-established that it is for a person who claims exemption to establish it, and there is no reason why it should be otherwise when the exemption claimed is under the Act and that a person who claims the benefit of exemption has to establish it. 5.3.9 The Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF MADRAS in the case of Sri B. Ramach…

Santhosh Agarwal, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1507/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathanandshri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1507/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Santhosh Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of Income No. 9-A, Arihant Orchard, Vs. Tax, 54, Flowers Road, Kilpauk, Non-Corporate Circle -10(1), Chennai – 600 010. Chennai. [Pan: Afrpa 1436Q] (&'यथ(/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri. N. Vijaya Kumar, CA

Section 10(38)

…k 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 :-4-: ITA No. 1507/Chny/2018 materials which would enable 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. Fu…

Bhupendra Amrutlal Davey, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, each of the above assessee’s appeal(s) is/(are) partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2650/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 May 2018AY 2014-15