← 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

Seahara Co-Oprative Cane Development Union Limited, Bijnor vs. ITO, Nazibabad, Bijnor

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4708/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Ms. Akansha, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

u/s.80P. 3 Seohara Co-operative Cane Development Union Ltd. 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

Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Limited, Badayun vs. ACIT - 2, Moradabad

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3985/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Vs. Acit-2, Limited, Moradabad C/O-Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri, Badaun, Uttar Pradesh Pan :Aazfs2514E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 80P

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

Shantiben K Rita, Goregaon West vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(4), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3406/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailshantiben K Rita, 1601, Laburnum Tower, Sv Road, Goregaon West, ……………. Appellant Mumbai - 400104 Pan – Aecpr3455A V/S Ito, Ward-41(4)(4), ……………. Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai Maharashtra Assessee By : Shri Surji D. Chheda, Ca Revenue By : Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Surji D. Chheda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

facts in confirming the action of AO to disallow interest in spite of the fact that It has been for earning income from other sources and there is no finding that it is not in accordance with law and in spite of the fact that Section 57 conditions has been ... when nothing in the reply is found wrong and there is nothing to suggest that interest expenditure has not been spent for earning income from other source.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is a partner in two partnership firms

Nanikram Fatehchand Changlani, Ulhasnagar, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2199/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarnanikram Fatehchand V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Changlani, 403, 4Th Floor, बनाम 2(5), Kalyan, Wayle Nagar, Manila Apartments, O.T. Khadakpada, Kalyan - 421 301, Section, Ulhasnagar - Maharashtra 421005, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aiypc1289P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Suresh OtwaniFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, (Sr. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

erred in not accepting the contention, submission regarding source of earning Rs 9,00,000/- which was voluntarily offered under the head “Income from other sources”. 4. The Appeal is filed in time. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds on or before ... under:- Sr.No. Heads of Income Amount(Rs.) Amount 1 Pension Income 4,29,581/- 2 Income from House Property 1,50,850/- 3 Income from other Sources P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2017-18 Nanikram Fatehchand Changlani FDR Interest 98,193/- Bank Interest 20,567/- Other Income(Cash Deposits

Arvind Shashank HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 460/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 210Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 271F

ITA No.460/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arvind Shashank HUF vs. ITO Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Vikram Tatyaba Chatur, Satara vs. Income Tax Office Ward 3, Satara

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

ITA 2376/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs.1,55,66,971/- made by the Assessing Officer in the ex-parte order under the head ‘Income from other sources’. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his original return of income ... assessment u/s 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.1,55,23,330/- being the cash deposited treating the same as ‘Income from other sources’ and taxed u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3 5. Since despite issue of notice the assessee did not submit any submission

The Venginissery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 443/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

thereafter held that interest income on investment of Rs.3,26,93,644 earned by the assessee society is to be treated as income from other sources and not the business income and therefore not eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Similarly, he also held that miscellaneous income ... wherein interest income on investment and miscellaneous income of Rs.3.27 crores and Rs.3.13 crores respectively is considered chargeable to tax under income from other sources. Accordingly total gross income of assessee from business was computed at Rs.14,43,752 and income from other sources was computed at Rs.6

Patel Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

plus Rs.34 lakhs) for share issued since exceeds the fair market value of such shares, is required to be brought to tax as income from other source u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the I. T. Act. I am therefore of the considered view that the addition of Rs.51 ... plus Rs.34 lakhs) for share issued since exceeds the fair market value of such shares, is required to be brought to tax as income from other source 11 Patel Minerals Pvt. Ltd. u/s.56(2)(viib) of the I.T. Act. I am the refore of the considered view that the addition

Shri Kamaluddin Popatlal Surani, Vapi vs. PCIT, Valsad

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

ITA 666/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.666/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Kamaluddin Popatlal Surani, Vs. The Pcit, A/12, Golden Park, Kabrastan Road, Valsad Vapi - 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajyps2442M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyaya, Ar Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/01/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 253(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 56(2)(x)

PCIT is in accordance with clear statutory provisions of the Act. Clause (x) of Section 56(2) expands the scope of income from other sources w.e.f. AY.2017-18 and subsequent year to provide that receipt of the sum of money or property by any person without consideration or for inadequate consideration ... excess of Rs.50,000/- shall be chargeable to tax in the hands of recipient under the head “Income from other sources”. Hence, AO should have taxed Rs.14,93,393/- and not the entire Stamp Duty Value (SVA) u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. Moreover, AO should have added Rs.33

Gurmukh Singh Sandhu, Vpo Manuke vs. Income Tax Officer (OSD)-2, Jagraon

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

ITA 496/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 496/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 बनाम Gurmukh Singh Sandhu, The Ito (Osd-2), Near B. D. Public School, Jagraon, Vpo Manuke, Tehsil Jagraon, Ludhiana 142034 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bqrps5927C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2025 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2011- 12. Ita No.496-Chd-2024 Gurmukh Signh Sandhu, Ludhiana 2 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 31,89,350/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposits In The Bank Accounts Of The Assessee. The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings Noted That The Assessee Had Deposited An Amount Of Rs. 31,89,350/- In His Bank Accounts (Rs. 25,75,000 With Bank Of Baroda & Rs. 6,14,350/- In Hdfc Bank). The Assessing Officer Treated The Aforesaid Amount As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee & Made The Impugned Addition.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT

that the Assessee was an individual, agriculturist and his only other source of income was interest from saving bank account under the head ‘income from other sources’, besides agricultural income. It was also explained that the Assessee did not enjoy any income which was chargeable to tax as income

Shastri Lal, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3918/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

taxmann.com 301 (Del.) wherein the department has succeeded before their lordships that the impugned interest component ought to be assessed as income from “other” sources only. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. It emerges that this tribunal ... capital receipt' forming part of enhanced compensation as envisaged in section 45(5) of the Act to 'revenue receipt' chargeable to tax as income from other sources. The view taken by the Ld. AO that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act received by the assessee is exempt under

Dilbag Singh, Rohtak vs. Income Tax Officer, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3909/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

taxmann.com 301 (Del.) wherein the department has succeeded before their lordships that the impugned interest component ought to be assessed as income from “other” sources only. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contention. It emerges that this tribunal ... capital receipt' forming part of enhanced compensation as envisaged in section 45(5) of the Act to 'revenue receipt' chargeable to tax as income from other sources. The view taken by the Ld. AO that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act received by the assessee is exempt under

Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers vs. Dibya Trading Co LLP, Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 4330/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer Dibya Trading Co. Llp

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Jay BhahsaliFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 10(35)Section 250

Trading Co. LLP A.Y. 2015-16 Rs. 3,86,74,033/-, which was disallowed by the Assessing officer and taxed under the head income from other sources? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exemption

Sourabh Agrotech Private Limited, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

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

ITA 712/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: MS Alka Gautam, CIT (Through
Section 143(3)Section 153A

earlier assessments based on documents submitted at that point of time, are camouflaged or manipulated or reflected to be in the nature of income from a source which is different from the real nature or source as appearing from the evidences found during a subsequent search, then such material/facts coming ... return on 30th Oct., 2006 and offered Rs. 24 crores for taxation. Assessee has filed the return and disclosed income from house property, income from other sources and loss on long-term capital gain on the sale of immovable property. The assessee has further disclosed profit from trading in commodity

Saurabh Agrotech Private Limited, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

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

ITA 711/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: MS Alka Gautam, CIT (Through
Section 143(3)Section 153A

earlier assessments based on documents submitted at that point of time, are camouflaged or manipulated or reflected to be in the nature of income from a source which is different from the real nature or source as appearing from the evidences found during a subsequent search, then such material/facts coming ... return on 30th Oct., 2006 and offered Rs. 24 crores for taxation. Assessee has filed the return and disclosed income from house property, income from other sources and loss on long-term capital gain on the sale of immovable property. The assessee has further disclosed profit from trading in commodity

Arnab Kumar Goswami, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 62(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1710/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1710/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arnab Kumar Goswami……….. ……..…..…………………....Appellant Flat – 1C, Subham Apartment, Narayantala East, Baguiati, Kolkata – 700059. [Pan: Ahbpg0395G] Vs. Ito, Ward-62(1), Kolkata…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Dilip Sahu, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 01, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.06.2024 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’). 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,52,310/- During The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessee Purchased An Immovable Property At Rajarhat At Sale Consideration Of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, The Stamp Duty Value Of The Property As Per Deed Of Conveyance Dated 05.09.2016 Was Rs.35,36,655/-. The Difference Of Rs.10,36,655/- Was Splitted Between The Assessee & His Spouse Amounting To Rs.5,18,327/-. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Invoked Section 56(2)(Vii) Of The Act & Added Rs.5,18,327/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee As ‘Income From Other Sources’ While Framing Assessment. The

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151(1)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Assessing Officer invoked section 56(2)(vii) of the Act and added Rs.5,18,327/- to the total income of the assessee as ‘income from other sources’ while framing assessment. The I.T.A. No.1710/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arnab Kumar Goswami Assessing Officer issued notice

DCIT-CC-5(3), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3840/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara () Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/w. ShriFor Respondent: Biswanath Das-CIT DR
Section 115BSection 44

income like, Interest on Securities, income from house heads of income like, Interest on Securities, income from house property property, Capital gains or Income from other sources. Being , Capital gains or Income from other sources. Being non-obstante clause, sec. 44 mandates that the profits and obstante clause

Hbs View Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2246/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D/R
Section 24Section 56(2)(vii)

made by the Assessing Officer, which was added to the total income of the assessee under the head "Income from Other Sources" on account of the difference between the stamp duty value and the agreement value of the property purchased by the assessee." 5. "On facts and circumstances ... less than the stamp duty value, the difference should be treated as income in the hands of the recipient under the head “income from Other Sources”. 6. "On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) failed to take into account the amendment to Section

Valukko Infrastrusture Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vil)

difference in the fair market value (Rs. 2,24,75,500/-) and the agreement value (Rs. 1,91,75,157/-) as income from other sources u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Since no reply was received to the show cause notices issued, the AO proposed an addition

Lanxes India P.Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Thane

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

ITA 1125/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

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