← 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

Parshwanath Buildestate Private Limited, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

ITA 1357/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.&For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT a
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

that S.115BBE specifically refers to the income which are of the nature as referred in S.68, 69, 69A of the Act being the income from other sources. Therefore, subjected income has essentially to be classified u/s 14 of the Act as income from other sources and that is possible only ... Admittedly, there is no other known or unknown source of business hence there is no possibility of the said income being part of “Income from Other Sources.” Moreover, the said additional income of Rs. 2,00,10, 200/-.was only on account of purchase of building construction material and land

Mantri Ganna Vikas Parishad Parsendi, Bahraich vs. ITO-1, Bahraich

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

ITA 618/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 Mantri Ganna Vikas Parishad V. The Income Tax Officer-1 Parsendi, Bahraich Bahraich C/O Ayyubi Chambers Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Aaalm1622L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 5Section 80P

Assessee Counsel. 5. That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in treating Income on Bank FDR's Rs.179568/- as Income from other sources by relying on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars reported in 322 ITR 283 without appreciating that

Shimoga Davanagere Chitradurga Dist Soc Union Limited Coop Milk Producers, Machenahalli, Nidige vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle1, Shivamogga

ITA 136/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV

Shimoga Davanagere Chitradurga Dist Coop Milk Producers Soc Union Limited, Machenahalli Nidige Post vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 Shivamogga, Shivamogga

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

ITA 135/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

that the assessee has received interest from other co-operative banks on its investments. The revenue authorities have considered the entire interest as income from other sources u/s. 56 including the interest received from co-operative banks and no expenses u/s. 57(iii) has been allowed to the assessee

The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Limited, Kolkata vs. ADIT, Int. Tax., Kolkata

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

ITA 2558/KOL/2002[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR
Section 36Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Computation of Total Income Income from House property NIL Income from Business or profession 29,58,419.00 Income from capital gains NIL Income from other sources NIL Less: Deduction under Section 80P of the 29,58,419.00 Income Tax Act, 1961 Total income NIL 4. The return was selected ... ledger, members ledger, etc. In the case of Kanpur steel; company ltd. vs CIT [1957 32 ITR 56 (All HC)], it stated that, "income from undisclosed sources- burden of proof that the high denomination notes enchased on heir demonetisation and explaining the I.T authorities that it formed part of cash

Allied Finance P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Delhi

ITA 4089/DEL/1994[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2025AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2015-16 Co-Operative Cane Vs. Income Tax Officer, Development Union Ltd., Ward-1(2), Cane Union, Hapur, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaajc0224M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2012-13

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

have been derived from the eligible undertaking and business activities; as the case may be, which has been rightly treated as an income from “other” sources. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement arguments reiterating their respective stands ... members 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

Kivito Sema, Dimapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Dimapur

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

ITA 214/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh GoenkaFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 10(26)Section 115BSection 127Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

well as the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in treating the purported peak -credit of Rs. 28,86,905/- as income from other sources of the appellant. (iv) That neither the Assessing Officer was justified in making addition of Rs. 22,95,000/- U/s 69A of the Income

Sridhar Pinnamaneni, Vijayawada vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 80/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: : Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

Assessing Officer be deleted. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, deriving income from business and income from other sources, filed his return of income for the A.Y.2016-17 on 14.10.2016, declaring total income of Rs.68,62,680/-. A search and seizure operation

Sridhar Pinnamaneni, Vijayawada vs. ACIT, Central Cercle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 79/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: : Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

Assessing Officer be deleted. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, deriving income from business and income from other sources, filed his return of income for the A.Y.2016-17 on 14.10.2016, declaring total income of Rs.68,62,680/-. A search and seizure operation

Sridhar Pinnamaneni, Vijayawada vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 78/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: : Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

Assessing Officer be deleted. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, deriving income from business and income from other sources, filed his return of income for the A.Y.2016-17 on 14.10.2016, declaring total income of Rs.68,62,680/-. A search and seizure operation

Haripriya Kotapati, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 105/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram & OrsFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 270ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(32)(vii)

assessee at Rs.71,55,790/- by making addition of Rs.71,53,250/- u/sec.56(32)(vii)(b) of the Act under the head “Income from other sources” as against the returned income of Rs.2,540/- vide order dated 27.03.2022 passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On being ... Rs.71,53,250/-is made to the income of the assessee u/s 56(2) (vii) (b) of the Act, under the head "income from other sources" for A.Y. 2017-18. As the assessee has misreported the income of Rs.71,53,250/- , penal proceedings u/s 270A of the Act are initiated

Ashok Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ITO WD-2(1), Kota

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

ITA 1225/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.& Sh. Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 5

proceedings, assessee has submitted the documentary evidence regarding the payment of stamp duty. Further assessee has also offered income of Rs.78,748/- from income from other sources. As is evident from the record that the assessee has sold immovable for a consideration of Rs.85,00,000/, whereas the value adopted

Shri Vinay Badera, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 3, Pune

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

ITA 2463/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Vinay Badera Acit, Circle 3, Pune 303, Rohan Tapovan, Sb Road, Vs. Gokhale Nagar, Pune – 411016 Pan: Abjpb1324J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.S. Rajpurohit Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-03-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B.S. RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

time. 2 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has showed interest income under the head ‘ Income from other sources’ of Rs.1,03,18,929/-. Further, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 57(iii) of the Act of Rs.1,03,18,929/- against ... income from ‘other sources’. According to the Assessing Officer, as per the provisions of section 57(iii) of the Act, any other expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income, is allowed

Safal Twins Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the appellant is partly allowed as above

ITA 6881/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Safal Twins Cooperative Ito Ward-27(3)(2) Housing Society Ltd. Tower No. 6, Vashi Cts No. 396, 396/1, 397 Vs. Station Complex 397/Safal Twins Saras Vashi, Navi Baug St Road, Deonar Mumbai-400 703. Mumbai-400 088. Pan : Aaeas0103R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Giridhar Dhelia
Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 90P(2)(d)

Cooperative Sale Society 322 ITR 283 (SC), where it was held that income from utilisation of surplus funds was taxable under the head ‘income from other sources’ and hence not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 3. During the appellate proceedings before the Bench

Khudbuddin Dadepir Pirjade, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

ITA 6668/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay R. Singh
Section 56(2)(x)

property purchased, us stamp valuc rate and agreement rate of the property purchased, us 56(2)(vii)(b) 56(2)(x) as income from other sources, 56(2)(x) as income from other sources, 56(2)(x) as income from other sources, without without without appreciating the facts ... actual consideration, the same shall be chargeable to income chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other tax under the head "Income from other sources". The appellant's argument is correct as to the proviso 1 to the sources". The appellant's argument is correct

Khudbuddin Dadepir Pirjade, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

ITA 6407/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay R. Singh
Section 56(2)(x)

property purchased, us stamp valuc rate and agreement rate of the property purchased, us 56(2)(vii)(b) 56(2)(x) as income from other sources, 56(2)(x) as income from other sources, 56(2)(x) as income from other sources, without without without appreciating the facts ... actual consideration, the same shall be chargeable to income chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other tax under the head "Income from other sources". The appellant's argument is correct as to the proviso 1 to the sources". The appellant's argument is correct

Suchita Bhatia, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir-6, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 902/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT a
Section 143(2)Section 250

Palawat Vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, ITA No. 144/JP/2022 22 ITA No. 902./JPR/2024 Suchita Bhatia vs. DCIT. Issue: The issue was“Deduction against Income from other sources.” AO enquired the issue and passed the order. PCIT did not agree to this and passed revision notice in respect of following issues ... limited to the issue in the case of limited scrutiny and PCIT has exceeded the limit. Held: The issue was Deduction against Income from Other Sources. Therefore the issue of activity of taking loans, i.e. how the amount is utilized, what is the rate of interest paid, what

Dashrath Kumar Sharma, Jpr, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(4), Jpr, Jaipur

ITA 647/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 647/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Dashrath Kumar Sharma 73, Pancholiya Ka Mohalla, Kanota, Jaipur – 303 012 बनाम The ITO Vs. Ward 7(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: EAJPS 0594A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by Shri Hemang Gargieya, Advocate :

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 68

alleging that total purchase consideration of the properties is less as compared to the DLC value as income from other sources. The impugned addition so made and confirmed, being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, kindly be deleted in full ... creditors 10,00,000 6 Addition as per provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act 15,32,337 7 Income from other sources 38,76,456 Total assessed income 3,57,41,850 4. Aggrieved from the above order of the assessment the assessee preferred

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Khanna vs. Dharminder Kumar, Ludhiana

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 1084/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1084/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ito Dharminder Kumar, Ward No. 1, Khanna. H. No. 553, Bank Jite Walakhuh, Khanna, बनाम/ Vs. Ludhiana-147001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Asmpk-2657-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Shri Lal Chand, Advocate For Sh. A.K.Jindal, (Advocate )– Ld. Ar Appellant By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 03-09-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 18.02.2024. The Revenue Has Allowed The Appeal By Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.2,11,80,491 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao In The Assessment

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 148ASection 69Section 69C

unexplained expenditure under section 69 C and taxed as per Section 115BBE. The income and commission income was assessed under the head "Income from Other Sources". The findings of the ld. CIT(A)) had contained in the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) had concluded that the withdrawal from

Late S. Yogarathinam, Rep. by L/H Y. Shanmuga Durai, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:626/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Y. Shanmuga Durai, L/H Of Acit Late S.Yogarathinam Vs. Circle -1(2) Old No.24, No.14, Chennai. 17/24, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Pan: Aakpy-9845-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 122Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 47

arriving total income of Rs.12,70,75,080/- after making the following additions: a) Income from house property - Rs.1,34,15,885/- b) Income from other sources (commission) - Rs. 15,000/- c) Income from other sources (agrl) - Rs. 1,50,000/- d) Short term capital gain - Rs.4