← 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

ACIT 3(4), Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5900/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 & 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5959/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Idbi Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Apulki Cornermenon, Of Income Tax -3(4), Piston Compound, Mumbai Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT,DR
Section 250

Bank Ltd.. The Tribunal observed that the assessing officer had treated the interest income earned by the respondent Bank on securities as income from other sources. The Tribunal observed that the investments in securities are in stock in trade, and this fact has been CO.No.28/Mum/2024 IDBI Bank ... several occasions during assessment proceedings. Despite this fact, the AO disallowed the above capital loss and treated the same as gains under income from other sources without appreciating that there was in fact a capital loss. The ld.AR has taken us through page-1 to 5 of the paper book

ITO Exemption 2 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Vaibhav Medical and Education Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5494/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailito (Exemption) – 2(4), Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400026 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S Vaibhav Medical & Education Foundation, C-1, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400030, Maharashtra Pan – Aaatv3207A

For Appellant: S/Shri Ronal Doshi a/w Deep ChouhanFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 24

particular head that the question of allowing deduction under that head arises for consideration. In a case where an assessee-trust has income from different sources and has applied such income and a part of such income ITA No.5494 -Mum-2024 (A.Y. 2011-12) 14 comes within the ambit ... reads as under – Section 145 Method of accounting. 145. (1) Income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources" shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed

Tuljabhavani Housing Development Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(3)-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2249/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 148

head him the interest income was required to be assessee under head him the interest income was required to be assessee under head ‘income from other sources’ and the expenses ‘income from other sources’ and the expenses debited in the debited in the profit and loss account having and loss

Tuljabhavani Housing Development Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Mumbai ITO Ward 4(3)-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2248/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 148

head him the interest income was required to be assessee under head him the interest income was required to be assessee under head ‘income from other sources’ and the expenses ‘income from other sources’ and the expenses debited in the debited in the profit and loss account having and loss

Prasad Jaykar Shetty, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

ITA 3651/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Prasad Jaykar Shetty Ito, Ward-3(2) A-43, Building No. 2 Ashar I.T. Park Vishram Tower Vs. 6Th Floor, Room No. Wagle Estate 04, Ambika Nagar, Thane West-400 604. Wagle Estate Thane-400 604. Pan : Aozps2736L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.D. ChouguleFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Shetty
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the head Income from other sources." 3. Aggrieved by the addition, the appellant filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), and certain additional evidences were filed for the first

Edavilangu Service Co-Operative Bank No 3468, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 406/COCH/2024[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. ARFor Respondent: None
Section 2(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

from the above bank are eligible for deduction under section 80P (2)(d) of the Income Tax Act and cannot be assessed as income from other source. Hence, the reasoning made by the authorities below to deny the claim for deduction under 80P of the Act is not legal ... Income by the way of interest unless assessable as business income. Therefore in interest which is being offered and assessed under the head "income from Other Sources" ought not have considered for calculate "gross receipts". Hence, there is illegality made in the assessment order, by adding income from investments

Edavilangu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No 3468, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 405/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. ARFor Respondent: None
Section 2(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

from the above bank are eligible for deduction under section 80P (2)(d) of the Income Tax Act and cannot be assessed as income from other source. Hence, the reasoning made by the authorities below to deny the claim for deduction under 80P of the Act is not legal ... Income by the way of interest unless assessable as business income. Therefore in interest which is being offered and assessed under the head "income from Other Sources" ought not have considered for calculate "gross receipts". Hence, there is illegality made in the assessment order, by adding income from investments

Santosh Bhansali HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result notice issued u/s

ITA 716/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalsantosh Bhansali Huf, D-79, Patrakar Colony, Tilak Marg, Shanti Path, Jaipur 302004 Pan No. Aaohs6943N ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur …... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act of Rs. 1,40,60,000/- being sale consideration of equity shares of Lactose (India) Ltd. as income from undisclosed sources which is purely based on assumption, presumption, conjectures and surmises. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... consisting of Rs. 1,87,43,686/- under the head short capital gains, Rs. 43,09,023/- under the head income from other sources and Rs. 8,70,03,314/- as long term capital gains (Not chargeable to tax u/s. 10(38) of the Act). Thereafter an information was received

Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya, Jaipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1155/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Vedant Agarwal, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 2(22)Section 250Section 68

assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the year under consideration the assessee derived income under the head Salary, House Property, Capital Gains and Income from Other Sources. The case of the assessee was assessed after making addition u/s. 2(22) (e) of the Act amounting to Rs. 50 Lacs

Skyscraper Realbuild Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2174/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2174/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Skyscraper Realbuild Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ First Floor, 115, Ward-1(1)(1) V/S. Satyamev Aawas, Ahmedabad Coconut, Kudasan, Gandhinagar-382421. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaica8859J अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr-DR
Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

Rules, 1962, determined the FMV at Rs. 9.32 per share and held that the premium received in excess of FMV was taxable as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(viib). 3. The CIT(A), in its order dated 15.10.2024, confirmed the addition without independently examining the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(4), Hyderabad vs. Aarthik Greentech Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 32/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.32/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Aarthik Greentech Income Tax Solutions Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aalca6887D] आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.33/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Aarthik Infra Projects Income Tax Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aahca0719N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 21/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Aarthik Greentech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Aarthik Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153C

Aarthik Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd. by the assessee company in cash from Asma Estates & Investments Pvt.Ltd. is undisclosed income, assessable under the head ‘income from other sources’. Therefore, made addition of Rs.7,76,99,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 19. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee ... payment for relinquishment of right over the property by cancelling development agreement is assessable in the hands of the assessee under the head ‘income from other sources’. The Ld.CIT(A), without considering the relevant facts, Aarthik Greentech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Aarthik Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd. simply deleted the additions made

Mrs. Babu Sheeny, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-6(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3206/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3206/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Mrs. Babu Sheeny, The Income Tax Officer, New No. 719, Old No. 666, V. Non Corporate Ward -6(1), T.H. Road, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 019. [Pan: Aawps-4485-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. K. Ravi, Ca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025

For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

requested to reprocess the return of income stating that these income have been offered under the head income from house property and income from other sources already :-3-: ITA. No: 3206/Chny/2024 and hence, disallowance amounts to double taxation of the same. Apart from that, the assessee also filed a grievance ... year 2021-22 along with detailed computation of income showing the details of income from business and also income from house property and income from other source. The ld.AR also filed the tax audit report in Form 3CA & 3CD duly certified by the CA. The ld.AR took us through

Sri. D. K Shivakumar, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

ITA 1064/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: S/ShriFor Respondent: Shri.Y. V. Raviraj, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 292CSection 69ASection 69B

Capital gain on transaction with M/s. Davanam Constructions Private Limited Rs. 103,36,94,904/- (Substantive addition) (16) Income from other sources on account of transaction with M/s. Davanam Constructions Rs. 104,97,55,888/- (Protective addition) 3. Aggrieved by this order, the assesse filed an appeal before the learned

Genesys International Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC Bangalore, Bangaloe

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

ITA 634/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Business and Profession since the salary is of employees of the business undertaking. Such deemed income could in no way be taxed as Income from Other Sources. 20. Ld. AR vehemently argued that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as Coordinate Bench

Late Pravinchandra Dwarkadas Dalal (Legal Heir Hiten Pravinchandra Dalal), Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax It Circle 42(3)(1) Erstwhile Circle 33(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5367/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 50

receipts while expenses under the heads telephone, electricity, office etc. are booked. The business loss was set-off against short term capital gains & income from other sources. No depreciation was claimed. 2006-07 (1,37,738) P-L account shows bank interest receipts while expenses under the heads telephone, electricity ... office etc. are booked. The business loss was set-off against short term capital gains & income from other sources. No depreciation was claimed. 2007-08 nil Nil profits & gains of business are disclosed in ITR & no depreciation was claimed. 2008-09 (1,37,746) P-L account shows bank interest

Abhishek Sanjeev Nadgeri, Navi Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Navi Mumbai

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 4499/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 115BSection 131Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 69A

29/07/2022. The assessment was completed under section 147 of the Act, by making addition of Rs. 7,47,709/- including income from other sources amounting to Rs.7,08,336/-, treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before

Pinstripe Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3756/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh ShethFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr. DR
Section 56(2)(x)

action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 93,46,548/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as income from other sources on account of alleged difference between value as per stamp duty rate and consideration paid by assessee as per registered purchase deed

Unity SMC Joint Venture., Mumbai vs. DCIT-22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 225/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Unity Smc Joint Venture, Dy. Cit-22(1), 1252, Pushpanjali Apartment, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aabfu 9813 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ashish Heliwal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Apurva Gandhi
Section 40

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the income from other sources determined erred in upholding the income from other sources determined erred in upholding the income from other sources determined erroneously by Ld. AO in its assessme erroneously ... assessment order, amounting to Rs. nt order, amounting to Rs. 6,01,718 while the actual income from other sources as per ITR filed 6,01,718 while the actual income from other sources as per ITR filed 6,01,718 while the actual income from other sources

DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Air India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 4484/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

under the head business income. Since the interest has been earned on fixed deposits & other advances, it is required to be taxed under income from other sources therefore the AO has treated the interest on fixed deposits under income from other sources. 2.2 Further the AO observed that the assessee ... necessary. 15. On the first disputed issue with respect treatment of interest on short term deposit with banks abroad to be taxed as income from other sources and not as business income. The Ld. DR submitted that the CBDT has made representations to Inland revenue department of UK for treating

Kushal Mittal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, assessment order is quashed, and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1891/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate along with Sohum Dua, Abhyudaya Shankar BajpaiFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234ASection 270A

that the receipts of the Appellant from its Indian customers are not chargeable to tax in India either as business income or as income from other sources under the provisions of the Act read with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and United Arab Emirates. 9. Incorrect levy of interest ... case and submissions of the assessee while passing the draft assessment order held the receipts on account of supply of manpower as ‘Income from Other Sources’ and made addition of the entire receipts i.e. Rs.62,56,46,817/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) highlighting