CIT v. Ramkrishna Deo

35 ITR 312Supreme Court of India1959#1356 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 366,470 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

Hiren Girish 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 2641/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2640/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 35(1)(ii)

…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). Hence, the AO shall require each of the above assessee; to establish who, with whom, how and in what circumstances the impugned sums were donated etc., to prove that the impugned donations are actual donations and not accommodation entries, the Healthcare Bio-Herbal Research Foundation is eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 35 etc. Each of…

Vidya Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO Inl. Taxation Ward 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2016/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2016/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mrs.Vijaya Prabha, JCITFor Respondent: 15.05.2018
Section 10(38)Section 68

…t 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 spec…

Pondicherry Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 3054/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 31(5)(ii)Section 35(1)(ii)

…n 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 materials which would enable to come to a conclusion. (35 ITR 312 (SC)). Hence, the AO shall require the assessee; to establish who, with whom, how and in what circumstances the impugned sums were donated :-5-: etc., to prove that the impugned donations are actual donations and not accommodation entries, the Healthcare Bio-Herbal Research Foundation is eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 35 etc. The assessee…

Inventurus Knowledge Services P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed

ITA 5922/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: - 2009-10 Inventurus Knowledge Services V. Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. 5(2)(1), C/O. Seren Properties Pvt. Ltd. 525, Aaykar Bhavan, (Sez), Unit No. 204, Build No. 5, M.K. Road, Mindspace Airoli Camp, Plot No. Mumbai - 400 020. 3, Gat No. 95, Kalwa Trans, Thane Creek, Midc Industrial Area, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 708. Pan/Gir No. Aabck4601P

…on record cogent material to prove that its case falls with in the four corners of the beneficial provisions. The assessing officer relied upon the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT 27 ITR 1 (SC) & CIT v. Ramkrishna Deo 35 ITR 312 (SC). Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd v. CIT 227 ITR 172 (SC), the assessing officer held that accounting standard prescribed by ICAI cannot override the Act, and thus, rejected the contention of the assessee company by considering the loss as speculation loss and not a…