SANGEETA RATILAL PANCHAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(5), MUMBAI
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose
ITA 2882/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18
Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosainsangeeta Ratilal Panchal Vs Ito, Ward-42(1)(5), Room No.945, Room No.2115, Plot No.335 Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai- Tamil Sangam Chawl, Jawahar 400 051 Nagar, Road No.19, Goregaon West, Mumbai-Alapp5767E Appellant Respondent
For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, (SR. DR)
Section 156Section 234Section 234BSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(21)(vii)
Rs.68,25,024/-.
Therefore, in this way, according to the revenue, the difference f Rs.12,67,524/- attracts the provisions of section 56(21)(vii)(b) of the Act and hence, the same was considered as “Income from other sources” and added to the total income.
3. However, in order
