“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

Saini Co-Operative Tharift and Credit Society Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-48(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4912/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Saini Co-Operative Tharift & Vs Ito, Credit Society, 2429-21, Ward-48(1), Bazar Kamra Bangash, Darya New Delhi Ganj, New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabas8396K Appellant Respondent Shri K.Sampath, Adv. & Appellant By Shri V.Raj Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr 01.07.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 80P

total income of Rs. 52,90,600/- by making addition of the interest on FDR with cooperative bank by treating the same as Income from Other sources. The appeal filed against such order was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) however, no further appeal was preferred against such order ... facts remains that the income of the assessee is exempted u/s 80P of the Act and could not be assessed under the head, “Income from other sources” as has been done in the instant case. Ld.AR further submits that identical issue has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench

Karam Vir Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 2605/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmakaramvir Yadav, Vs. Assessing Officer, 1135, Sector 46, Nfac, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Abipy5863E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ranjan Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 29.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Assessee Company, 1961. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Of The Act, So Much So That, The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Do Not Satisfy The Statutory Twin Conditions Prescribed Under Section 263 Of The Act, Viz., (I) That The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

jurisdictional High Court judgments on any legal issue? (v) Whether the interest received on enhanced compensation is taxable as income under the head ‘income from other sources’? 4 Whether the assessment order which is passed without inquiry and following the valid and applicable judgments of jurisdictional High Court ignoring ... held that interest received on all compensations of land acquisitions are taxable under Income Tax Act, 1961 as income under the Head income from "Other Sources". The interest received on enhanced compensation received on acquisition of agricultural land is not exempt u/s 10(37) of Income Tax Act, 1961.The assessment

Himgiri Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 11(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 7080/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhimgiri Realtors Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 11 (3), Flat No.818, 8Th Floor, New Delhi. Devika Tower 6, Nehru Place, New Deli – 110 019. (Pan : Aabch6093E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal, Advocate Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 28.08.2018 For Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Impugned Appeal Order Is Bad In Law, Illegal & In Violation Of Rudimentary Principal Of Contemporary Jurisprudence.

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

dividend in the hands of the appellant company and the amount of Rs. 1,81,59,953/- is correctly added under the head 'income from other sources' by the AO. 4.2.3.3. The appellant has submitted that dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Is taxable

M/S Genpact Infrastructure (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3394/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 1OSection 234BSection 250

charges attributable to the delivery of services outside India be not reduced. Further the AO proposed to tax interest on term deposits as Income from Other Sources. After considering the replies of the assessee, the AO treated the interest from fixed deposits as “Income from other Sources” and held that ... facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in holding that the above interest income is taxable as income under the head "Income from Other Sources". 2. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding that while computing deduction u/s I10AA of the Act following receipts

Kamakhya Prasad Tasa, Jorhat vs. Income Tax Officer, Jorhat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/GTY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 44Section 69A

case and the paper book filed. In the return of income filed, the assessee had shown income under the heads salary, income from other sources and income from business or profession under section 44AD of the Act. It was submitted before the Ld. AO that the details of purchases

Sanjaykumar Rameshbhai Mali, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 508/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 208Section 234Section 234ASection 234B

mentioned in para 6 of the Reasons Recorded. (c) Further the Reasons Recorded are for escapement of "Capital Gain and addition made as Income for “other sources” runs counter making the very basis of Reopening of Assessment bad in Law and Void. II On Merits: 1. Your Appellant submits that ... amount of Rs. 5,40,0000/- received by your Appellant as "Confirming party" to the Sale Document is Capital Gain and not income from other sources as assessed. 2. Your Appellant further submit that the Sale Deed would have remained incomplete without signature of Confirming Party and therefore confirming party

Balageria Central Co-Operative Ltd., Purba Medinipur vs. ACIT Circle-27(1), Haldia

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2320/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2320/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Balageria Central Cooperative Ltd Vs Acit, Circle-27(1), Haldia Saraswatitala, Contai, Ho, Contai Dist: Purba Medinipur, W.B. Pan No. :Aaalb 0087 A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 26.09.2024, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069142040(1) For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mrinmay Basak, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 20.04.2021. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Was Initiated For One Of The Grounds Being The Refund Claim, Most Specifically, Ratio Of The Refund Claimed To The Income Of The Assessee. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act Was A Subject Matter Of Suo Moto Rectification By The Ld. Assessing Officer. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That In The Rectification Order The Assessing Officer Mentions That The Assessee Has Filed His

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 72(3)

submission that admittedly the interest on the income tax refund is liable to be assessed only under the head income from other sources. There is no dispute that in regard to set off against the carried forward loss, admittedly the same cannot be set off against the carried forward business ... loss but the assessee is fully entitled to set off the said interest income under the head income from other sources against the 8 carried forward depreciation loss as also the depreciation loss of current year. It was the submission that this was also brought to the attention

Inderjit Singh, Phagwara vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Phagawara

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

ITA 369/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Sharma, C.A

Section 143(1)Section 154oSection 250

into consideration, the revised return, and has treated the gross contract receipt from Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. as reflected in form 26AS, as income from other sources and has assessed the same accordingly raising a tax demand of Rs.2,96,000/-. 7. The matter was carried in appeal before ... which resulted in CPC, Bengaluru, considering the gross contract receipt corresponding to the said TDS amount, as individual receipt under the head income from other sources, which in fact has enhanced the total income. 10. He further submitted that the assessee has corrected his error by filing a revised return

The Mahil Gailan Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Limited, Mahil Gailan, Sbs Nagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 106/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Sharma, C.A

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(VA)Section 37(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

Bengaluru has allowed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) only to the extent of the claim that is appearing under the head “income from other sources”. Now the assessee states that the claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) has not been allowed. 6. He further submits that

Ritu Agarwala, Shillong vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guwahati

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

ITA 67/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 127Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

stock found during the course of the survey and the same was declared in the return as Income-tax Disclosure under the head ‘Income from other sources’ for AY 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') thereafter, I.T.A. No.: 67/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ritu Agarwala ... observed that the Appellant had declared Rs. 35,87,244/- as 'Disclosure during Income Tax Survey on 14.03.2018' under the Head Income from Other Sources in her ITR for the relevant year. When the SCN was issued by the AO to explain why additional income 'disclosed

Ravindra Sonajirao Kshirsagar, Beed vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 159/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.159/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Assessee by Smt Deepa Khare

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

Printing in the name of M/s. Ravindra Printers. He also has other source of income from running Transport business, share of profit and income from other sources. Business income is declared under the Presumptive Taxation Scheme u/s.44AD of the Act. In the 4 Ravindra Sonajirao Kshirsagar income-tax return where

Mudubhagilu Krishna Murthy Divakar, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Assessing Officer, Shimoga

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 732/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Monish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 144Section 234ASection 250

expenditure not allowed by the AO. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessee had declared income from partnership firm, income from other sources and agricultural income. Assessee filed return of income on 30.10.2018 in ITR 3 declaring income of Rs.14,73,650/- and agricultural income ... Rs.6,26,494/- (Rs.29,81,142 – Rs.23,54,648) and the same difference was added to the income of the assessee as income from other sources treating the same as his undisclosed income earned during the year under consideration and not offered to tax. Accordingly, assessee was issued show cause

Bhawani Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 4(1), Jpr, Jaipur

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

ITA 471/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147

such receipt as its income under the provisions of section 44AD of the Act at Rs.140589 and Rs.19239 was declared as income from other sources declaring total income at Rs.159828. Thus the cash deposit is fully explained in the present matter as being covered by the total business receipts declared

Rane Nsk Steering Systems Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ltu, Chennai

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

ITA 3017/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3017/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin, C.A GHFor Respondent: Shri R.Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

deleted. Rane NSK Steering Systems Pvt. Ltd. :- 7 -: 6. The assessee has also raised a ground that the A.O. has erroneously set off income from other sources amounting to Rs.30,36,813/- twice in the computation of loss, leading to an incorrect reduction of the assessed loss. We find that

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Mangalprabhat Gumanmal Lodha, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2246/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D/R

Section 24Section 56(2)(vii)

Rs.3,26,58,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, which was added to the total income of the assessee under the head "Income from Other Sources" on account of the difference between the stamp duty value and the agreement value of the property purchased by the assessee." 5. "On facts ... less than the stamp duty value, the difference should be treated as income in the hands of the recipient under the head “income from Other Sources”. 6. "On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) failed to take into account the amendment to Section

Pune Madhyamik Shikshak Sahkari Patapedhi Maryadit, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune 4, Pune

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

ITA 909/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee is related to its core business or is a residuary income which is required to be taxed under the head ‘Income from Other Sources'. Similarly, as per the provisions of section 80P(2)(d), interest income earned by a cooperative society will be eligible for deduction only from ... which it has been held that the interest income, which has been earned by investing surplus funds, would come in the category of 'Income from other sources' taxable u/s 56 and would not qualify for deduction as business income u/s 80P(2)(a), however, the Assessing Officer has prima facie

Srinivas Reddy Mereddy, Rangareddy vs. DCIT., Central Circle - 1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 48/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K A Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR

Section 131Section 132Section 139(4)Section 144Section 250Section 69Section 69A

making the addition of Rs.48 lakhs u/sec.69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash and addition of Rs.10 lakhs under the Head “Income from other sources” and accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.60,89,370/- as against the returned income of the assessee at Rs.2 ... sustained by the learned CIT(A) should be deleted. 5.1. In so far as addition of Rs.10 lakhs made under the Head “Income from Other Sources”, towards agricultural income, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the assessee has filed relevant evidences including proof of agriculture land holding

Thermodyne Dynamics Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -17(3), Hyderabad

ITA 500/HYD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri Pawan KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna -CIT-

Section 11USection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 56

prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely:-- xxx xxx xxx (vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons ... Rs.50,000) by an individual or an HUF is chargeable to income-tax in the hands of recipient under the head 'income from other sources'. However, receipts from relatives or on the occasion of marriage or under a will are outside the scope of this provision. The existing definition

The Malnad Arecanut Syndicate Private Limited, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shimoga

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 340/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri. Madhu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 143Section 194Q

claimed TDS as noted above : i. Income from House Property – Rs.4,44,807/- ii. Profit and Gains from Business/Profession – Rs.31,65,369/- iii. Income from Other Sources – Rs.2,18,422/- 4. The CPC issued defective notices to the assessee which were replied to but it was not considered and granted

Anil Srichand Rohra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 3274/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailanil Srichand Rohra, Shop 743, Pawai Chowk, Thaily Bazar, Ulhasnagar, ............... Appellant Pan : Aegpr7262H V/S Ito, Ward – 2(1), ……………… Respondent Kalyan

For Appellant: Shri Sunil TalrejaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

same is in fact Rs.3,36,229/-. 6. From the perusal of the computation sheet, we further find that the AO has considered income from other sources at Rs.2,10,09,330/-, however, there is no such discussion regarding the same in the assessment order. Further, as per the computation ... total income furnished by the assessee, the assessee has only declared income from other sources at Rs.2,174/-. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo consideration after providing the reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing