“income from other sources”

Piyush Subhash Wadhwa, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeal), Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarpiyush Subhash Wadhwa V/S. Commissioner Of Income 64, Ashirwad Icici बनाम Tax (Appeal)National Apartments, Gd Ambekar Appeal Faceless Centre, Marg, Naigaon Dadar(E), Delhi Mumbai – 400 014, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagpw3024N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

interest paid against interest earned which resulted in loss of Rs. 38,21,341/-,reflected under the head Income from Other Sources and the said loss had been adjusted against P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2016-17 Piyush Subhash Wadhwa the salary income. In this regard, the assessee ... told to give the justification of deduction claimed Rs.50,73,055/- against the income from other sources with supporting documents. In response, it was submitted that he had taken a loan of Rs.5,84,61,493/- from HDFC Bank Ltd. The assessee had advanced to Tridhatu Suraj Villa Developers LLP/Tridhatu

Tabassum Abdulla Inamdar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

consideration, assessee had received dividend income from foreign shares amounting to Rs. 3,58,649/- duly reported in her return in ‘Schedule OS: Income from Other Sources.’ Claim for taxes paid outside India was also furnished in ‘Schedule TR’ and also details of income from outside India and tax relief

ITO 19.3.1, Mumbai vs. The Jackson Co Op Credit Society of the Employee of Western Railway Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

explain the interest received from investment from District Cooperative Bank and other banks and treasuries etc which should not be treated as income from other sources. In response to the notice the assessee submitted that the assessee is society is engaged in business of banking/providing credit facility to their members ... relied upon the order of the Ld. AO. He contended that the interest income earned by the assessee is in the nature of “Income from Other Sources" and does not constitute business income derived from the activities of the co-operative society. Accordingly, he submitted that such income

Rasila Lalitkumar Cholera, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

equivalent amount as bogus purchase of shares. Alternatively, it can also be concluded that the sum of Rs. 6,15,496/- represents income from other sources and not the income in the nature of capital gain. Looked in whatever manner, the basic fact remains that

Manish Kantilal Haria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer International Tax Ward 2 (2) (1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

appellant's income by disallowing interest of Rs. 6627268 which in effect is not claimed as an expense u/s 57 by appellant from income from other sources. In fact, in return of income filed, only Rs. 1437455 is claimed as interest expense and in revised computation filed during course ... Appeals) erred in confirming assessment order issued by Ld. ITO by stating that appellant has carried forward loss of Rs. 4571709 from income from other sources to A.Y. 2021-22. In fact, no loss from other sources is carried forward to A.Y. 2021-22 as per Schedule CFL of return

DCIT Central Circle 2 Thane, Thane vs. Hiren Bechar Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are decided as follows:-

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

appellant. It is further seen that income on account of interest received is being declared as business income and not as 'income from other sources'. Thus, the income accrued on account of interest receivable is required to be recognized by the appellant and cannot be deferred to subsequent years. Therefore