“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

Zahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(4)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 8244/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalzahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh A/10 Jai Hind Society, Asalpha Gahtkopar Link, Ro Mohili Village Sakinaka, Mumbai - 400072 ............... Appellant Pan: Buups3134C V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(4)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………… Respondent Mumbai – 400020

For Appellant: Ms. Shama Mohd. Ismail Patel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

then the stamp duty value of such property as it exceeding such consideration shall be chargeable to income tax under the head “income from other sources”. The first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) provides that where the stamp duty of the immovable property as referred

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Trent Limited, Mumbai

In the result, these grounds of appeal are

ITA 5242/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Trent Limited Dcit-2(3)(1), Mumbai 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bombay House, Mumbai, Vs Maharashtra – 400001. Maharishi Karve Road, [Pan: Aaacl1838J] Mumbai-400020. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Dcit-2(3)(1), Mumbai Trent Limited 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs G Block, Plot No. C 60, Trent House, Maharishi Karve Road, Beside City Bank, Bandra K Complex, Mumbai-400020. Bandra E Mumbai – 400051. [Pan: Aaacl1838J] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 254(1)Section 40A(2)Section 92BSection 92C

Indirect administrative expenses Rs. 4,75,71,096/- 4 Disallowance u/s 35D Rs. 1,37,05,328/- 5 Interest Income from other sources Rs. 22,37,78,890/- 6 Disallowance discount on gift cards Rs. 3,14,625/- 7 Disallowance on discount of gift vouchers

Trent Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, these grounds of appeal are

ITA 5166/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 254(1)Section 40A(2)Section 92BSection 92C

Nivrutti Pandurang Bhor, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3589/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Mr. Nivrutti Pandurang Bhor, Income Tax Officer - 27(2)(1), B/502, Shiv Prerna Chs. Lts, Tower No.6, Andheri Link Road, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Complex, Asalpha Village, Vashi Navi Mumbai– 400 703 Mumbai – 400 072 Pan:Aagpb5212K (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 54

r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 21.03.2022 by making addition of Rs.36,35,520/- towards the LTCG, Rs.35,993/- under the head “Income from other sources” and Rs.13,84,112/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority

Anshu Dhawan, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4182/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmananshu Dhawan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No.933, Sector 17B, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aggpd5365D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.01.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250

profit earned by the 4 assessee was of Rs.45,93,765/- on investment in the said property which should be treated as income from other sources. Accordingly, he rejected the claim of the assessee and proceeded to make the addition under the head income from other sources. 4. Aggrieved with ... difference of Rs.2,22,00,000/- shown as full value consideration under the head "Capital Gain" as total receipt under the head of "Income from Other Sources after excluding the payment of Rs.1,76,06,235/-) by treating the capital gain (sale of rights in flat) as "Income from Other

Naresh Kumar Morya, Narela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 61(1), Civic Centre

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2292/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhannaresh Kumar Morya, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajiv Colony, Narela, Ward-61(1), New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahupm7348A

For Appellant: Shri H. S. Hooda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

assessee as to why the differential consideration of Rs. 3,32,960 (52,32,960 minus Rs. 49 lakhs) be not treated as income from other sources as per the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee gave the entire explanation together with the relevant

Patel Seva Sangh, Bokaro Steel City vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (National E-Assessment Centre), Ranchi

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

ITA 486/RAN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Patel Seva Sangh, I.T.O., C/O-Sardar Patel Public School, Sector- Exemption, Vs. 9, Bokaro-827009 (Jharkhand) Hazaribagh. Pan No. Aabtp 2202 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44ASection 56

that the appellant is a Trust and its case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment on following two issues i.e. (i) Deductions from Income from other sources and (ii) refund Claim. Accordingly, the case was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Statutory notices under Section

Amit Kumar, Begusarai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 410/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Hence, the difference of interest income of ₹1,65,314/- was also added to the total income of the assessee under the head ‘income from other sources’. The Ld. AO also added a sum of ₹3,61,07,900/- u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act to the total income

Gyasuddin Mohammad Ansari, Purnia vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (3), Purnea

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 311/PAT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 80Section 80E

rejecting the appellant's claim that the consideration of Rs.48,68,000/- should be assessed under Capital Gain and not under ‘Income from Other Sources’ and should have accepted the appellant's calculation of long term capital loss arising from sale of property amounting to Rs.2,17,363/- . The appellant ... contention of the appellant that once the AO has accepted that the said receipts are proceeds of sale of land and not Income from other sources, the said benefit should not have been denied by the AO as stated by him in the assessment order, merely because of the fact

ACIT(Exemption), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Enviormental Service Society, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1817/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, CAFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Assessing Officer denied the exemption claimed under section 11 of the Act and treated the entire surplus as taxable income under the head “Income from Other Sources”. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and raised ... contractual in nature and not income derived from property held under trust and accordingly treated the surplus as taxable income under the head “Income from Other Sources”. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), after examining the objects of the assessee, the nature of activities carried out and the manner

Nirav Arvindkumar Patel, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1576/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 44A

facts in upholding the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. as the addition made by treating business income as income from other sources. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made ... business and that the income earned did not partake the character of business income. The Assessing Officer accordingly treated the interest income as “Income from Other Sources”. 4. While doing so, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had received interest of Rs. 98,09,734/- during the year

Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5) Now ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1061/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Ito Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Vs. Ward-1(2)(5). Patel Now Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) 86,Kanha Residency Vadodara – 390 007 Kalali Road, Kalali Ahmedabad – 390 012 [Pan : Aigpp 8415 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Assessee Represented By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 54BSection 54F

individual engaged in the business of retail trading of furniture and, during the year under consideration, had income from capital gains and income from other sources. For Assessment Year 2015–16, the assessee filed his return of income on 18.03.2016 under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act declaring

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Kolhapur vs. Pawan Bhageria, Ichalkaranji

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2775/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2775/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Vs. Pawan Bhageria, 25, Shopping Centre, First Floor, Main Road, Ichalkaranji- 416115. Pan : Abfpb8610H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar Assessee By : Shri Shekhar Patwardhan & Shri Vikrant Joshi Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 22.09.2025 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act For Assessment Year 2018-19 Framed On 27.09.2021 By The Ito, Nfac, Delhi. 2. Revenue Has Raised Five Grounds Of Appeal But Effectively There Are Two Grievances Of The Revenue. Ground No.1- Mandatory

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Patwardhan &For Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69B

same was subsequently revised on 15.10.2018 and 01.02.2019. Case selected for complete scrutiny to examine (i) source of loans/advances and (ii) income from other sources. The assessee is in the business of wholesale trading of yarn and general commission agent. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were duly

Nere Vibhag Nagari Sah. Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2374/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2374/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nere Vibhag Nagari Sah. V Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S Ward-5(4), Pune. 61, Mangalwar Peth, Tal – Bhor, Pune – 412206. Pan: Aacan2385C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 31.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Act, Dated 04.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the interest received from investment as income from other sources by rejecting appellant's contention that said interest income is integral part of business activity and your appellant prays for cancellation of Assessing officer's action

K. G. Finvest Private Limited, East Delhi vs. Central Circle 29, Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 4330/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2015-16] K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Circle-29, F-24 F/Floor, I.Sc Pankaj Delhi Central Market, Mandawali Fazalpur, Nr Natraj Vihar Society, I.P. Extn., New Delhi- 110092. Pan-Aaack4032H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv. & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Respondent By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-5/10256/2017-18 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2015, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,09,130/-. The Case Was Selected Under Limited Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Followed By Statutory Notices Issued U/S 142(1) Were Issued From Time To Time. In Response, Assessee Filed Submissions & Relevant Details Alongwith Evidences. The Ao Observed That The Assessee Issued 8,40,000 Equity Shares Of Inr 10/- Each At A Premium Of Inr 490/- Each & The Valuation Of Shares Was Done By Following Dcf Method. However, The Ao Rejected The Method Of Valuation Of Share Adopted By The Assessee & Re-Computed The Value Per Share At Inr 50.35 Per Share As Per Nav Method & Made Addition Of Differential Amount Of Inr 37,77,06,000/- U/S 56(2)(Viib) Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", if u is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, hems ... prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely:- …………….. …………….. (viib) where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from

Mahender Malik, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward -(1), Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5586/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Mahender Malik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 388, Satroad Khurad, Near Ward-1, Adarsh High School, Hisar Hisar Pan: Bitpm5341N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Rathore, Adv. Sh. Mayank Patawari, Adv. Department By Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069269047(1), Dated 30.09.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 154 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In The Assessee’S Condonation Averments, Delay Of 3 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Is Condoned In Light Of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc). 3. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 4. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 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.

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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. 2 | P a g e 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contention ... 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

Biramane Education Foundation, Satara, Maharashtra vs. The ITO, Exemption Ward 1(1), Pune, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2945/PUN/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Sanmane, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vishwajit Shinde, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 58

engaged in any business or profession and the income, if any, earned during the year is declared under the head ‘income from other sources’. I find that an amendment has been brought in by the Finance Act, 2017 effective from 01.04.2018, as per which, the provision of section ... shall so far as may be applied in 3 ITA.No.2945/PUN./2025 Biramane Education Foundation computing the income chargeable under the head ‘income from other sources’, as they apply in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’. The said amendment clearly indicates that

Kesarinath Ram Gaikwad, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panvel

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

ITA 2139/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 10(37)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

Because, the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,40,00,000/- under the head "Income from Other Sources" by disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 10(37), failing to appreciate that the Appellant is the legal heir of late Shri Purushottam Sitaram Gaikwad (the former Vahiwatidaar ... acquired land. 6. Because, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.23,54,443/- as interest income under the head "Income from Other Sources" failing to appreciate that the said interest was never actually received by the Appellant but is disputed in civil suit and also locked

Rajasekhar Naidu Galla, Tirupati vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupathi

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

ITA 917/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Revenue. 11. The Ld. Pr. CIT erred in holding that the admission of gain/loss on shares and securities under the head 'Income from Other Sources renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, whereas such a treatment, even if assumed to be debatable, does ... case.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual deriving salary income, rental income and income from other sources, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 10.01.2021, declaring a total income of Rs. 29,31,680/-. The case was selected

Shree Govind Property & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2166/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee had earned income from House property amounting to ₹2,16,03,609/- and Income from other sources of ₹42,94,079/- being gross interest received and had also incurred current year’s loss amounting to ₹96,08,371/- under the head