← 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

The Kannur District Merchants Co-Operative Society Limited, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward 1 and Tps, Kannur

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

ITA 669/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jaikrishna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 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

Poothakulam Service Co Opearative Bank Ltd No 2944, Kollam vs. ITO Ward - 2, Kollam

ITA 325/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Poothakulam Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Poothakulam P.O., Kollam 691302 [Pan: Aadap3252H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Karbala Junction Kollam 691302 Appellant By: Shri Rajagopal, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

making an addition of Rs. 3,69,27,761/- u/s. 56 of the Act on account of interest earned from banks as “income from other sources”. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being ... 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 3 Poothakulam Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. deduction is covered by Section 80P(2)(d) viz. Interest or dividend

Vallachira Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. The ITO Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and the stay application stands dismissed

ITA 542/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 116/Coch/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vallachira Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd .......... Appellant Vallachira P.O., Thrissur 680562 [Pan: Aaaav9543J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(1), Thrissur Appellant By: Shri Ramdas, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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

Ranjit Thakur, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 1121/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. L Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Rs.587200/- (Rs.198000/- Rs.195200/ Rs. 194000/-). Therefore the same is being added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment from, income from other sources. 5 Ranjit Thakur The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is also being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate ... purchase of bond for Rs.500000/-. Therefore the same is being added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment from, income from other sources. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is also being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

Income Tax Officer, Beawar vs. Sangeeta Bafna, Mewari Bazar Beawar

13. In view of the above discussion, ITA No

ITA 1110/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Feeling Aggrieved By Assessment Order Dated 12.03.2021 Passed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2022-23. Vide Said Assessment Order, The Assessing Officer Finally Computed Taxable Income Of The Assessee As Under:- “Final Computation Of Taxable Income: Sl. No. Description Amount (In Inr)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 270A

14/JPR/2024 ITO vs. Sangeeta Bafna mentioning that the case was being selected for “limited scrutiny” on the issue of deductions against income from other sources, and that is how, in that case, the order passed by Learned PCIT u/s 263 of the Act was set aside. Result 13. In view

Tej Singh Sinsinwar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

order dated 30.11.2018 under section 144/147 of the IT Act, 1961 by treating the time deposit in bank of Rs.10,17,980/- as income from other sources and added to the total income of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before ... made during the year under consideration. Hence, without evidence regarding source of time deposit, entire time deposit of Rs.10,17,980/- treated as income from other sources and added in 28 ITA No. 1100/JPR/2024 Tej Singh Sinsinwar, JAIPUR. the total income of the assessee. On appeal before

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shri. Balaji Ramchandra Ande, Latur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 625/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah And Shri Rohit S TapadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 68Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

person. As provided by section 5 of the Act, total income of any previous year of a person would, inter alia, include all income from whatever source derived which is received or is deemed to be received by such person, subject to the provisions of the Act. It will ... income under section 14 of the Act, it would not be possible to classify such deemed income under any of these heads including "Income from other sources" which have to be sources known or explained. When the income cannot be so classified under any one of the heads of income

Unicorn Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru

Appeal are allowed for

ITA 2083/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Return: In the original return filed on 12.08.2013, the appellant correctly reported the derivative income of =1,13,89,679 under the head "Income from Other Sources." However, due to an inadvertent clerical mistake, the net figure of 90,68,939 (derivative income minus F&O loss) was reflected ... total column under "Income from Other Sources." The loss on F&O trading was not separately shown as an expense, leading to a mismatch between the reported income and the total column. Intimation Under Section 143(1): Based on the original return, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) issued an intimation

A T and S India Private Limited, Nanjangud, Mysore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1220/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit, Kolkata-2 A T & S India Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 12A, Industrial Area Nanjangud Chowringhee Square, Vs. H.O, Mysore-571301, Karnataka Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2930J Assessee By : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

contract, we hold that the High Court is justified in concluding that the said amount was a taxable receipt under the head 'Income from other sources'. 12. We find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with costs.” 010. Similarly, an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless

Palm Court M Premises Co Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 6115/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Palm Court M Premises Co Operative Ito Ward 30(2)(5), Society Ltd., Room No. 519, 5Th Floor, Kautilya Vs. Ground Floor, Palm Court Co-Op. Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block Hsg, Link Road, Malad (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400064. (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaaap 8738 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Ramani, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 80P(2)(d)

interest income earned by the assessee is declared as income earned by the assessee is declared as ‘business income business income’ or ‘income from other sources income from other sources’. The said information ’. The said information was not readily available with the Ld. counsel for the assessee available with ... income shown by the assessee has been shown whether the interest income shown by the assessee has been shown as ‘business income’ or ‘income from other sources’ in the return of income filed for the income filed for the year under consideration. After der consideration. After verifying the above

Growmore Research and Assets Management, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (Erstwhile DCIT-31, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

ITA 453/MUM/2023[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta and ShriDharmeshFor Respondent: Dr.P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel
Section 144

proper business deal and accordingly assessed the lease rent of Rs.30,000/- received in this year as income under the head Income from other sources. The AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.1.27 crores calculated @ 25% of the cost of machinery of Rs.5.03 crores. Since the lease ... rent was assessed as income under the head Income from other sources, the AO disallowed the depreciation claim of Rs.1.27 crores. 17.1 The Ld CIT(A) noticed that the lease agreement has been entered on 16-04-1992, but the lease payment has started from 16.9.1991 itself, i.e., about seven

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-4(3) Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. M/S Growmore Research and Assets Management Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1125/MUM/2023[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta and ShriDharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Dr.P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel
Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

New Era Industrial Services Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(1), Gurgaon

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3272/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Reema Grewal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 156Section 244ASection 254(1)

learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. AO), erred in computing an income of Rs. 4,55,64,966 as Income from other sources and as Gross Total Income in the computation sheet, which is not in conformity with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel and the assessment

Gomati Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Agartala vs. ACIT-National-E-Assement Centre, New Delhi

ITA 136/GTY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

interest income as deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The same was disallowed by the ld. AO by treating it as income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed 1st appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) 4. vide order ... funds not immediately required for its business, is not income from business taxable under section 28 of the Act, but was taxable as 'income from other sources' under section 56, whereas for availing the exemption or 100 per cent deduction under section 80P, the income is specified in clauses

Tapulal Nathalal Dasani, Porbandar, Gujarat vs. Income-Tax Officer, Porbandar, Gujarat

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

ITA 782/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.782/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Hiren Dasani (Legal Heir) Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Tapulal Nathalal Dasani, Porbandar. 17 Dasani Tapulal Nathalal, Khakchowk, Porbandar, 360575, Gujrat, India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acjpd9031B (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18, u/s 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, showing net income of Rs. 7,85,850/- (Income from other sources Rs. 7,87,318/- and claiming deduction under chapter VI-A of Rs. 1,465/-). The assessee`s case was selected through CASS (Limited) Scrutiny

Holiday Triangle Travel Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

added the total sum of Rs. 52,89,920/- under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as its Income from other sources. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld.CIT (A) sustained the action ... sustained the action of the AO in treating the premium so collected as income of the appellant company as income from other sources u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. AR of the appellant has contended following reasons for accepting the valuation done by above

Mustafa Katthawala, Kota vs. DCIT ACIT, Circle-2, Kota

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

ITA 1156/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 244ASection 45(3)

from Rent from House property, Income from Business and profession i.e. proprietor of M/s Shakti Steel and Partner in Firm Taj Petroleum and Income from other sources like Interest from Saving bank account. The assessee furnished the details such as computation of income, bank account details etc., with regard

Madan Lal Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO-7(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1059/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodiya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 48

floor mill in the name and style M/s Shree Shyam Food Product and declared income under the head of business and profession and income from other sources in the year under consideration. On the basis of information gathered during the proceedings through portal. It is under preview the reason

Madan Jindal, Patiala vs. DCIT Circle, Sirhind, Patiala

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

ITA 835/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 835/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Madan Jindal C/o A Goel & Associates 50 SCF, Leela Bhawan, Patiala, Punjab-147001 बनाम The DCIT Circle, Sirhind Patiala स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAMPJ2919F अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashok Goel, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing: 08/01/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncem

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

computation of income furnished by the assessee that he has claimed expenditure of Rs. 10,12,400/- as interest paid under the head “income from other sources” and vide notice dt. 28/11/2019 necessary information, details alongwith documentary evidence like interest certificate etc. regarding interest paid was called for. In response ... return of income furnished by the assessee wherein the assessee has shown interest income of Rs. 2,689,960/- under the head “income from other sources” against which he has claimed interest expenses of Rs. 10,12,400/- and net interest income of Rs. 1,677,560/- have been offered

M/S Bajrang Furniture, Kaithal vs. ACIT, Circle, Kurukshetra

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

ITA 273/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vagish Sharma, CA and Shri Harshit Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)

course of assessment proceedings, the AO held that the income so surrendered is liable to be brought to tax under the head “Income from other sources” in view of the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and the assessment was accordingly completed under section 143(3) vide order