“income from other sources”

Income HeadsSection 56Section 568,248 judgments

THE SIMALIYA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2442/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 270ASection 69C

unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act and also added interest income of Rs. 10,107/- under the head “Income from Other Sources”, determining the total income at Rs. 26,27,107/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). However, during

THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,BANGLAORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1821/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Bhardwaj Sheshadri, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)

Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

confirming the disallowances of deduction claimed under section 80P of the Act for Rs. 3,16,97,426/- and treating the same as income from other sources. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee is a State level Federal Agri and Rural Development Credit Co-op Society. The assessee ... eligible for deduction, and interest income earned on surplus funds not immediately required for business purposes is taxable as “Income from other sources” under section 56 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO held that interest on investment, interest on other advances and other income aggregating

BHAWNA KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarsmt. Bhawna Kapoor Vs. Acit Prop M/S Manish Circle 62(1) Handicraft 1196, Main Delhi Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adxpk 3853 F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Chander, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A

filed necessary details. On examination it was found that assessee had shown income from Business and profession at Rs. 10,95,851/- and income from other sources at Rs. 6,709/-. In computation of income, an amount of Rs. 33,97,009/- was shown as long term capital gain

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI vs. DHEERAJ CHAUDHARY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6380/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumaracit Vs. Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary Central Circle-8 Flat No.1A Empire Estate, New Delhi Sultanpur, M.G. Road, New Delhi 110030 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaspk 9267 B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Monalisha Maity, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 274

assessee had shown profit and gain from business at Rs.5,14,957/- from turnover of Rs. 23,63,712/-, income from other sources at Rs. 3951/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,83,000/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on Karan Luthra group

YASH TRAVELS AND TOURS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

ITA 481/NAG/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Yash Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward–2(2), Nagpur F–5, Shrdha House, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kingsway, Nagpur–4440001. Nagpur–440001. [Pan: Aaacy3931D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(37)Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 96

Yash Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. ITANo. 481/Nag/2025 (A.Y. 2023–24) 13.14Crore and treated the compensation of Rs. 13.08 crore as income from other sources. The amount of compensation received on compulsory acquisition is exempt under section 10(37) of Income Tax Act (Act). The assessee by mistake ... notice of assessing officer (AO). TDS on interest is duly reflected in Form- 26AS. The AO treated such interest income as income from ‘other sources’. The ld AR of the assessee submits that CBDT in its Circular no. 36 of 2016 has also clarified that compensation received on compulsory acquisition

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

ITA 45/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2022-23 confirming the addition of Rs.1,25,13,425/- made by the Assessing Officer as ‘Income from other sources’. ITA No.45/PUN/2026 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.12.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

ITA 44/PUN/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

ITA 43/PUN/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

THE DALLA CO OP AGRI MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-, PHAGWARA

ITA 593/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 593/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Dalla Co-Op. Agri Vs. Ito, Ward (1), Multipurpose Society Ltd. C/O Phagwara. B.D. Bansal & Co. B-641, Ground Floor Near A Block Gurudwara Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. [Pan:-Aacat2201M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Lakshay Bansal, Ca Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.03.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

funds invested with either cooperative banks, Nationalised banks or Private banks, can be I.T.A. No. 593/Asr/2025 4 Assessment Year: 2018-19 classified as “ income from other sources” under provisions of section 56 of the Act. (para – 4 of the order), and thereafter, the claim has been disallowed by observing ... operative/Nationalised bank held as 'not attributable' to the business activities of providing credit facilities to its members and is being treated as 'Income from other sources' as per provisions of section 56 of the I.T. Act, 1961. This being the case, the aforesaid interest income

ANEEMONI NAGA RAJU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2074/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

credits in the\nappellant's savings account (No.236401500040) as unexplained\nmoney under Section 69A of the Act, thereby classifying the entire\namount as income from other sources.\n4. With regard to the credit of ₹25,00,000/-, the appellant had duly\nexplained that it was a hand loan extended ... nThe AO after making two-fold additions, viz., (i) unexplained money\nunder Section 69A of the Act: Rs.1,10,93,131/-; and (ii) income from\nother sources: Rs.48,345/-, determined the total income of the\nassessee at Rs.1,11,41,480/-.\n4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal

DEOBAND COOPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD,DEOPAND SAHARANPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC DELHI (ASSESSMENT UNIT)

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 6638/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2022-23 Deoband Cooperative Vs. Ao, Nfac, Delhi Cane Development Union (Assessment Unit) Ltd., Office Of Cooperative Cane Development Deoband, Uttar Pradesh-247554 (Pan: Aaaad0519J)

For Appellant: Sh. J.N. Shukla, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

parties or nonmembers does not quality for exemption u/s.80P. It is an admitted position that the interest so earned should be taxed as 'income from other sources' There is a cleavage of judicial opinion among several High Courts on the issue of eligibility of this kind of income for exemption

TECHPARK HOTELS PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ADDI. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 9450/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumartechpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Addl. Cit, Ground Floor, Central Wing, Special Range-9, Thapar House 124, Janpath, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aabce5833H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Shri Tavish Verma, Adv. Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 11.09.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2017 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Declaring Loss Of Rs.23,06,28,106/- On 30.11.2015. Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 22.09.2016 Was Issued. Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued. Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Shri Nirmal Malpani, Ca Appeared & Filed Details. On Completion Of Proceedings, Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated Techpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234DSection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

company. 11. That the assessing officer erred in not allowing set off of the current year business losses of the company against the income from other sources assessed in the impugned assessment order, that too, without assigning any reason and that the rectification application under section ... being given for the same. 4.6. Assessing Officer erred in allowing set off of the current business losses of the company against the income from other sources assessed in the impugned assessment order, that too, without assigning any reason. 4.7 The entire interest income earned by the appellant

SURAJ VIJAY KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the addition is restricted to Rs

ITA 8317/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya & Mr. Dhaval SalotFor Respondent: Shri S. Anbuselvan (SR AR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69

Suraj Vijay Kulkarni The assessee claimed the income from his new adventure in the Return of Income (ROI) under head of “Income from Other Sources” and claimed deduction u/sec 57 of the Act related to payment of expenses amount to Rs. 45,20,500/-. During the reassessment

THE BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 5274/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Jm\Nand\Nms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Am\N\Nita No.5274/Mum/2025\N(Assessment Year: 2018-19)\Nm/S. The Bombay Dyeing And\Nmanufacturing Company Limited,\Nneville House, Jn Heredia Marg,\Nballard Estate,\Nmumbai - 400 001\Npan: Aaact2328K\Nvs.\Nnational Faceless Appeal Centre,\Ndelhi (Deputy Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1),\Nmumbai - 400001\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Yogesh Thar, A.R.\Nms. Sukanya Jairam, A.R &\Nshri Saurabh Surana, A.R.\Nrespondent By\N:\Nshri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N22.12.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N18.03.2025\Norder\Nper Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:\Nthis Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned\Ncommissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. Cit(A)' For Short], National Faceless\Nappeal Centre (‘Nfac' For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'),\Npertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.' For Short) 2018-19.\N2.\Nthe Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N“1. Ground No. 1: Disallowance Of Rs. 4,65,28,171/- Under Section 14A Of The\Nact:\N1.

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 43C

Income Computation and\nDisclosure Standard (ICDS) shall apply for computation of income under the head “profits\nand gains of business or profession or income from other sources” irrespective of the\naccounting standards adopted by the companies whether accounting standards “AS” or\n“IND-AS”. The Ld. A.R. argued that since

PRAVEEN SANJIV,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-7(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3834/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3834/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Praveen Sanjiv, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 45, W Block, 7Th Street, Anna Non Corporate Ward 7(3), Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan: Fzzps0216R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.12.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

full consideration and the balance amount of ₹.63,84,000/- is the income of the assessee under the head income from other sources as rightly added by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act. She vehemently argued that the assessee did not file any details before the Assessing

EKKI KRISHNAMURTHY HUF,PUTTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/BANG/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250

raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances of agricultural income and treating the same as income from other sources. Page 2 of 9 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a HUF. In the original return filed ... agricultural income declared by the assessee was treated as income from other sources and brought to tax. 5. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Along with the appeal, the assessee filed statement of facts where in the assessee made identical contention that the assessee

KANAKA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,HOSADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-2, CHITRADURGA

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

ITA 2915/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Girish T.L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

original appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 22.06.2017, held the said interest income is to be taxable under the head “Income from other sources” and rejected the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. However, while confirming the action

SHREE JADEYA SHANKARLING URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2893/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Santhosh Magavi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 269SSection 68

section 115BBE of the Act will have no application so as . Page 7 of 10 to treat the income of the assessee as income from other sources. Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. reported in 84 Taxman 146 on identical facts took ... sufficient cash in hand in the books of account of the assessee, that there was no reason to treat the cash deposits as income from undisclosed sources. The Hon'ble Vishakapatnam Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Hirapanna Jewelers in ITA No. 253/Viz/2020 on identical facts held that when

AUTO NIRVAHAKARA CREDIT OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, UDUPI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2214/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Shenoy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250Section 28Section 80P(2)(a)

interest earned from deposits from scheduled banks does not qualify for deduction u/s 80P of the Act and consequently, taxed the same as income from other sources. 13. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who rejected the plea of assessee and upheld the disallowance made ... Court in the case of Totagar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. to contend that such interest income is assessable under the head income from other sources. 18.2 On perusal of the record, we find that the nature of the deposits and the source of funds invested in scheduled banks

KANAKAPURA VENKATARAMANASWAMY MADHUSUDHAN KARTHIK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO - 1, RAMAMNAGARA, KARNATAKA.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2028/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 10(1)Section 250Section 69A

declaring taxable income at Rs. 14,48,340/- consisting of income from house property for Rs. 14,28,578/- and income from other sources for Rs. 19,761/-only. The also declared exempted income of Rs. 29,86,046/- derived from agricultural activities. In the earlier years, the assessee ... corroborative evidence. In view of the above facts, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim of agricultural income and the source of the money remained unexplained. Accordingly, the action of the AO in disallowing the exemption u/s 10(1) and treating the amount

Showing 1–20 of 8,248 · Page 1 of 413

...