KUSUM DEEP,ROORKEE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ROORKEE
What were the facts?
The assessee, a retired Professor from IIT Roorkee, received consultancy fees which were offered to tax under 'income from other sources' with a 15% deduction for expenses. The AO treated these receipts as 'Salary' income under Section 15 and disallowed the claimed deduction.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that consultancy receipts by professors from IIT Roorkee, similar to previous cases, should be treated as income from other sources and allowed the claim of 15% expenses. The lower authorities' actions were reversed.
What were the issues?
Whether consultancy fees received by a retired professor from IIT Roorkee should be treated as 'Salary' income or 'Income from other sources', and if the latter, whether the claimed deduction for expenses is admissible.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH: DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
PER BENCH: This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] in Appeal No. NFAC/2023-24/10542011, dated 18.03.2026. The assessment was framed by AO, NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2024-25 under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) vide order dated 18.03.2026. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is regarding the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making the addition by treating the Kusum Deep vs. ITO
consultancy receipt of Rs.29.51,000/- from IIT Roorkee as ‘Salary’ income u/s 15 of the Act and, thereby disallo
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 15
- Vinod Kumar Goenka, Mumbai vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 5189/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Nilangsu Mitra, Bengaluru vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(3), BangaloreITA 1421/BANG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed20 Jul 2026AY 2020-21
- Kushal Narendra Desai, Mumbai vs DCIT, CC6(1), MumbaiITA 5231/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Jul 2026AY 2017-18
- Kapil Gupta, Delhi vs ITO, Ward-70(1), New Delhi, DelhiITA 1543/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2026AY 2020-21
- Rajkumar Pavankumar Sharma, Makarpura vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(7), VadodaraITA 1821/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sri Kamatchi Agencies vs. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal)Madras · 6 Oct 2026
- Dr S.Surya Prakash vs. The Secretary TO GovernmentMadras · 6 Oct 2026
- Madhusudan Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax Midnapore Charge And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- M/S Sanmargg Agrotrade INDIA Private Limtied And Anr. vs. Superintendent Central Tax Group-36 Circle-08 Office Of The Commissioner Of Central Tax And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Ramkrishna Datta vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026