← 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

Mrs Alka Pandey, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -25(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5650/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Alka Pandey, Asst. Cit-25(2), Maitri – Plot No. 10, Jvpd Scheme, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Vile Parle (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400049. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Agepp 1076 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Salukhe. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Aditya Maheshwari, CA
Section 143(3)Section 24

Commissioner of of of Income Income Income Tax Tax Tax erred erred erred treating treating treating Rs.2,479,680/ Rs.2,479,680/- as income from other sources instead of as income from other sources instead of income from house property and disallowing income from house property and disallowing ... separable from the Assessing Officer treated the amenities as separable from the building and assessed the same as and assessed the same as ‘income from other sources income from other sources’. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that under the amenities agreement, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that under the amenities

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. White Owlbrewery Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 4167/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Gaikwad
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

fair market value [determined as per the method prescribed], in the hands of the company issuing shares as income under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. With the aim of fostering Indian start- ups, Notification No. G.S.R. 127(E) was issued by the DPIIT on 19/02/2019. The aforesaid notification facilitated

DCIT (It) - 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets Fonds, Mumbai

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

ITA 4059/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Fonds, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400051. The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aacts 7682 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Q1 Institutional Emerging 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 14Th Floor, The Rc/O Ernst & Young Mumbai-400051. Llp, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabtr 2305 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: None
Section 74

under pecuniary advantage by reason of its income being assessed under pecuniary advantage by reason of its income being assessed under the head "Income from other sources", and for that reason benefit of the head "Income from other sources", and for that reason benefit of the head "Income from other

DCIT (It) 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Robeco Qi Institutional Emerging Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Mumbai

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

ITA 4058/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Fonds, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400051. The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aacts 7682 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Q1 Institutional Emerging 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 14Th Floor, The Rc/O Ernst & Young Mumbai-400051. Llp, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabtr 2305 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: None
Section 74

under pecuniary advantage by reason of its income being assessed under pecuniary advantage by reason of its income being assessed under the head "Income from other sources", and for that reason benefit of the head "Income from other sources", and for that reason benefit of the head "Income from other

Inno vs. Ource Services Private Limited, Mumbaivs.DCIT, 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3424/MUM/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 14(1)(1), 501, Jolly Board Tower 1, I-Think Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Techno Campus Kanjurmarg-East, Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400042. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaeci 0979 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: 06/01/2025
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80J

business of manpower supply) at Rs. 6,22,44,207/ business of manpower supply) at Rs. 6,22,44,207/ under the head ‘income from other sources’( i.e. income other than under the head ‘income from other sources’( i.e. income under the head ‘income from other sources’( i.e. income business

Matrix Partners India Investment Holdings, Llc, Mauritius vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3097/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 115JSection 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 270ASection 274

granted the beneficial option to the applicant at the preference of the Applicant itself. 11. Treaty Provisions are applicable in re/ qua "Income" and not "sources". In this case, there has been one single species of Income, "capital gains" that too, Long Term Capital Gains ... income. Hon’ble Special Bench also observed that, what is taxed by the Act is not different source of income, independently and that income from different source is clubbed under respective heads that are finally aggregated into the total income. The relevant extract of the observations

Dinesh Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward (5), Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 427/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.427/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dinesh Kumar……………………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/O Bhurendra Prasad, Near B D Public School, Buddha Colony, Patna – 800001. [Pan: Bxbpk1456M] Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Patna…………. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shailendra Sinha, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 By Showing Total Income Of Rs.2,71,810/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Followed By Notices Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Produce Books Of Accounts, Ledger, Cash Book Etc. Before Him But The Assessee Did Not Comply. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer After Verification Of Return Of Income Found That The Assessee Had Filed Balance Sheet Showing Gross Total Income Of Rs.36,00,712/- & The Assessee Incurred Miscellaneous

Section 143(2)Section 194Section 249(3)Section 250

treated as income from business and profession. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the unsecured loan of Rs.1445600/- and treated the same as income from other sources. Further, the Assessing Officer denied the claim under chapter VIA of Rs.150000/- and added back into the total income of the assessee by assessing

Nuruddin Alihusain Suratwala, Amatullah Manzil vs. ITO Ward 4(4) Nagpur, Bsnl Rttc Building

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: MS. Alfiya Rozie, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69

making addition of Rs.17,08,280/- on account of unexplained investment u/sec.69 of the Act; Rs.10,78,000/- on account of income from other sources u/se.56(2)(x) of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.33,33,160/- . 3. Aggrieved by the order

Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural Co-Op Society Ltd, East Godavari vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

ITA 438/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: 29.03.2022 After Obtaining Prior Approval From The Pcit, Visakhapatnam 1. In Response, Assessee Submitted Reply Through E-Mail On 24.03.2022 Stating That Assessee Is Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act & Therefore Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148A(A) Of The Act Is Not Warranted. Ld. Ao Did Not Accept The Reply Of The Assessee & Decided That It Is A Fit Case Of Issue Of Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act For The A.Y. 2018-19 & Thereafter Passed Order Under Section 148A(D) Of The Act On 30.03.2022.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

I.T.A.Nos.437 & 438/VIZ/2024 Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural Co-op Credit Society Ltd., -- Delhi [hereinafter in short "Ld.CIT(A)"] vide respective DIN

Nattika Service Co Operative Bank Ltd No R 308, Nattika vs. Income Tax Officer, Guruvayur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 932/COCH/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Bank/State Co-operative Bank, in the facts and circumstances of the case, do come within Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the income constitutes income from other sources and the only eligible deduction is covered by Section 80P(2)(d) viz. Interest or dividend derived by the assessee from its investments

Nattika Service Co Operative Bank Ltd No R 308, Nattika vs. Income Tax Officer, Guruvayur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 930/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Bank/State Co-operative Bank, in the facts and circumstances of the case, do come within Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the income constitutes income from other sources and the only eligible deduction is covered by Section 80P(2)(d) viz. Interest or dividend derived by the assessee from its investments

Nattika Service Co Operative Bank Ltd No R 308, Nattika vs. Income Tax Officer, Guruvayur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 929/COCH/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Bank/State Co-operative Bank, in the facts and circumstances of the case, do come within Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the income constitutes income from other sources and the only eligible deduction is covered by Section 80P(2)(d) viz. Interest or dividend derived by the assessee from its investments

Nitesh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1214/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69B

quoted below – 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 by the assessee

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 ... Thus, this subjected amount, pertained to the declared business activity/ source only. Therefore, such amount could not be considered as income from other sources and was to be classified. Even the Ld. CIT in the impugned order did not direct the AO that such income should be assessed under

Sudha Murthy Boyina, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(6), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1256/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1256/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sudha Murthy Boyina Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-12(6) [Pan :Acepb4211A] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 29/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Reason That The Assessee Has Received Sale Consideration On Sale Of Immovable Property, However, Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The A.Y.2018-19 & Therefore, Notice

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y, DR
Section 147Section 148

assessee at Rs.35,96,384/-. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.17,47,736/- towards credit in the bank account as income from other sources and after allowing deduction for investment under Chapter VIA of Rs.1,39,420/-, determined the total income at Rs.16,08,514/-. 3. Aggrieved

Bal Reddy Kandunuri, Adilabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1203/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 153ASection 69A

excess stock found during the course of survey to ascertain whether source for such excess stock is generated out of business income or income from undisclosed source. 12. During the course of survey, excess stock of leather and allied products has been found and such excess stock was noticed when ... case of Fakir Mohd. Hazi Hasan 247 ITR 290 that unaccounted income ought to be categorized under the residuary head of 'Income from other sources'. In respect to the said issue, the findings of the Coordinate Bench are as follows: "We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material

Bal Reddy Kandunuri, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1202/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 153ASection 69A

excess stock found during the course of survey to ascertain whether source for such excess stock is generated out of business income or income from undisclosed source. 12. During the course of survey, excess stock of leather and allied products has been found and such excess stock was noticed when

Tarun Kumar Goyal (HUF), Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 455/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(3)

order dated 03/11/2016 by making an addition of Rs. 36,83,077/- which represented the sale consideration of shares, under the head "Income from Other Sources." Page 2 of 8 ITA No.2093/Hyd/2017 & 455/Hyd/2020 Tarun Kumar Goyal (HUF) 4. Aggrieved by such an ac"on of the learned Assessing Officer, assessee

Tarun Kumar Goyal (HUF), Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2093/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(3)

order dated 03/11/2016 by making an addition of Rs. 36,83,077/- which represented the sale consideration of shares, under the head "Income from Other Sources." Page 2 of 8 ITA No.2093/Hyd/2017 & 455/Hyd/2020 Tarun Kumar Goyal (HUF) 4. Aggrieved by such an ac"on of the learned Assessing Officer, assessee

Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Satkriti Properties Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1752/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1752/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Escee Traders Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Satkriti Properties Pvt. Ltd.) ….....Appellant 12Th Floor, Unit 12B, Unimark Asian, 52/1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan: Aancs7043M] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata……….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. C. Jhawer, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rama Choudhary, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13 Against The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 26.03.2022. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.19,81,896/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act Based On Information Received Regarding Bogus Ltcg On Sale Of Shares Of Banas Finance Ltd. It Was Alleged That The Assessee Purchased 55,000 Shares For Rs.30,11,800/- & Sold Them For Rs.10,05,950/- Booking A Loss Of Rs.20,05,850/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Was Concluded

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

loss claimed was bogus and transaction was non-genuine. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed loss of Rs.20,05,850/- and treated as ‘income from other sources’ by passing an order u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act. He also mentioned in his order that penalty proceedings