← All Phrases

“income from other sources”

Income HeadsSection 56Section 568,248 judgments

The decision most relied on for income from other sources is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on income from other sources

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court
1,372
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO
322 ITR 283 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,283
citing judgments

The interest income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in fixed deposits with banks is not "derived from" its eligible business activities and is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, thus not qualifying for deduction under Section 80P.

K.P. Varghese v. ITO
131 ITR 597 · 1981 · Supreme Court
989
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 456 · 2010 · Supreme Court
663
citing judgments

Tax must be deducted at source from payments made to a non-resident under Section 195 only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing Officer bears the onus to establish that the payments made are indeed chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT
227 ITR 172 · 1997 · Supreme Court
621
citing judgments

Interest income earned on deposits, particularly before the commencement of business operations or as a requirement for business licensing, is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, and cannot be treated as business income or set off against interest on borrowed funds.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Liberty India v. CIT
317 ITR 218 · 2009 · Supreme Court
571
citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarified that for profits and gains to be eligible for deductions under sections like 10B, 80IA, or 80IB, the income must be "derived from" or have a direct nexus to the eligible business activity. Income from incidental sources like the sale of scrips/licenses or interest on employee loans is generally not considered as derived from the eligible business for such deductions.

Judgments citing income from other sources

Ranar Agrochem Limited, Parawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

ITA 288/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.288/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Ranar Agrochem Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccp0372M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M. Madhusudan, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Jenardhanan V, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 30/12/2016 For A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri M. Madhusudan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Jenardhanan V, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

Ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.5 Ground No. 4 pertains to addition of Rs. 1,35,680/- representing unreconciled receipts under the head 'income from other sources It is noted that some differences were seen while reconciling the receipts reflected in Form 26AS and the books of Account ... which was omitted to be shown in the books was assessed to tax The difference of Rs. under the head 'Income from other sources by the A.O. Submission of the appellant was perused. Though the appellant claims to have accounted in next F.Y, there was no submission before

ACIT-23(1), Mumbai vs. Gordhanbhai Govindbhai Kakadiya, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA

ITA 5333/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2026

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeacit-23(1), Mumbai Vs Gordhanbhai Govindbhai Kakadiya Room No.511, 5Th Floor Bc-2010, G Block Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Agypk2399A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR
Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

LTCG, the Hon'ble ITAT. Kolkata in the case of Manoj Jain ( HUF) in ITA No 1782/KOL/2018, treated the penny stock transaction as income from other sources instead of LTCG, and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court Calcutta (2004) 164 taxmann.com 133 (Calcutta), which has been

Deepak Shambhu Das Bhalla (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the appellant is Dismissed

ITA 7194/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Deepak Shambhu Das Bhalla (Huf) Ito 15(3)(2) 181/182, Tower A-3, Godrej Garden Mumbai Enclave, Vikhroli East Vs. Mumbai-400 079. Pan : Aafhb1790P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Asif KarmaliFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Sheth
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

Date of pronouncement : 29/08/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In this case, the Ld. AO added the amount as “income from other sources” which was claimed by appellant as exempt income of “long term capital gains”. The following grounds of appeal are taken by appellant ... Appeals)-26 ["the CIT (A)"] has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 22, 50,9157- made by the Assessing Officer as income from other sources which the appellant has declared as long term capital gain eligible for exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. 4. On the facts

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)

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 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)

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

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

ITA 2074/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021
Section 1Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

credits in the appellant's savings account (No.236401500040) as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act, thereby classifying the entire amount as income from other sources. 4. With regard to the credit of ₹25,00,000/-, the appellant had duly explained that it was a hand loan extended ... after making two-fold additions, viz., (i) unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act: Rs.1,10,93,131/-; and (ii) income from other sources: Rs.48,345/-, determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,11,41,480/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Jm & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 43C

Income Computation and Disclosure Standard (ICDS) shall apply for computation of income under the head “profits and gains of business or profession or income from other sources” irrespective of the accounting standards adopted by the companies whether accounting standards “AS” or “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