← 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

Karuppusamy Thangavelu, Coimbatoree vs. ACIT, Ncc-4, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1677/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1677/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Karuppasamy Thangavelu Acit बनाम/ 22/A, Siruvani Main Road, Non-Corporate Circle-4, Vs. Madampatti, Coimbatore-641 010. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afspt-3975-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta (Jcit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta (JCIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

demonetization period from 09-11-2016 to 30-12-2016 in various bank accounts. The agricultural income was also disallowed and considered as ‘income from other sources’. The assessee failed to furnish the requisite details during assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment since the assessee failed

Kolandasamy, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Erode

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 1601/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1601/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kolandasamy Ito बनाम/ Vannankadu Pudhu Valasu, Ward-2(2), Goundachipalayam(Po) Erode. Vs. Erode-638 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bxkpk-5482-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate From Erode) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate from Erode) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

Finally, the cash deposit of Rs.15.50 Lacs was added u/s 69A whereas the agricultural income of Rs.9.37 Lacs was brought to tax as ‘income from other sources’. The capital gains of Rs.0.41 Lacs were accepted to be agricultural income. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the stand of Ld. AO against

Jayantilal Bhagwanchand, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 735/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramanathan, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 68

facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case, a HUF, has filed its return of income declaring income from other sources and exempted LTCG. The assessee in the return of income has claimed exemption of long-term capital gain of Rs. 1,53,73,386/- under section

Vipra Vividhoddesha Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivmoga

ITA 1348/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member

For Appellant: Shri Vivek A.R. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 251(2)Section 57Section 80Section 80P

under the provisions of section 80P[2][d] of the Act and erroneously treated such interest income as income from other sources and brought the entire amount to tax, which is not in accordance with law, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner ... funds under section 57 [iii] of the Act, on the deposits which were maintained to earn interest, while treating the interest earned as income from other sources, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned AO ought to have allowed cost of funds of Rs.33

Vipra Vividhoddesha Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivmoga

ITA 1347/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member

For Appellant: Shri Vivek A.R. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 251(2)Section 57Section 80Section 80P

under the provisions of section 80P[2][d] of the Act and erroneously treated such interest income as income from other sources and brought the entire amount to tax, which is not in accordance with law, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner ... funds under section 57 [iii] of the Act, on the deposits which were maintained to earn interest, while treating the interest earned as income from other sources, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned AO ought to have allowed cost of funds of Rs.33

Vipra Vividhoddesha Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivmoga

ITA 1346/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member

For Appellant: Shri Vivek A.R. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 251(2)Section 57Section 80Section 80P

under the provisions of section 80P[2][d] of the Act and erroneously treated such interest income as income from other sources and brought the entire amount to tax, which is not in accordance with law, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner ... funds under section 57 [iii] of the Act, on the deposits which were maintained to earn interest, while treating the interest earned as income from other sources, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned AO ought to have allowed cost of funds of Rs.33

Mr. Rakesh Govindchand Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3346/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

show cause as to why the difference, i.e. Rs.2,96,500 be not considered as income of the assessee under the head “income from other sources”. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that 3 Rakesh Govindchand Mehta section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act allows a buffer ... assessment year 2019-20, and therefore the differential amount, i.e. Rs.2,96,500, is assessable in the hands of the assessee as income from other sources. 5. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the basis that the amendment to section

Ashu Kumar Jain, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-10(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 743/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.743/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Ashu Kumar Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 10(3) Pan:Acjpj9269R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kumar Patel Tated, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Patel Tated, CAFor Respondent: : Shri K.N. Suresh Babu, DR
Section 143(2)

NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee Shri Ashu Kumar Jain derives income from other sources and capital gains and filed his return of income for the Asst. Year 2017-18 by admitting a total income of Rs.3

Income Tax Officer, Haldia vs. Contai Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited, Contai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 597/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: us is less than Rs.50 lacs as the prescribed in the CBDT’s latest Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. It will be pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of the said Circular as follows:- “2 . As a step toward further management of litigation, it has been decided by the Board that monetary limits for filing of appeals in income-tax cases be enhanced further through amendment in Para 3 of the Circular mentioned above and accordingly, the table for monetary limits specified in Para 3 of

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P

that assesse made investment of surplus fund in Scheduled Commercial Bank namely PNB and as such interest income received from the PNB is " Income from Other Sources" and not related to business activity of assesse and hence not eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act. (ii) That ... erred in not considering the fact that interest income arising to Cooperative Society from utilisation of surplus fund was taxable under "Income from Other sources" and not eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act. (iv) That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete any of the grounds

Abhishek Khandelwal, Ajmer vs. ITO WD-2(2), Ajmer

ITA 582/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18
For Respondent: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CA (Th. V.C.)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69A

During the year under consideration the assessee has shown income from jewellery business in the name & style of M/s Laxmi Jewelers & income from other sources. The Id. AO after verification and examination of the details filed, noticed that assessee had deposited substantial cash amounting

Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Palghar vs. ITO, Cir-4, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 918/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Jain, Sr. DR
Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

appeal 3. During the course assessment the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has allocated certain expenses between the business income and income from other sources and that assessee has claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(d) against the business income and a deduction under section ... against the income from other sources. The income from other sources is arising out of income earned from commission and interest from MSEB and Bajaj Insurance and income from business is from the interest income earned from deposits with cooperative banks. The AO held that the assessee has allocated higher

Aravind Arunachalam Vellore, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 26(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2856/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalaravind Arunachalam Vellore, A 603, Zeel Darshan, A. S. Marg Near Custom Colony, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 Pan No. Acmpv9998A ..... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 26(1) (2) R. No. 304, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra East Maharashtra -400 051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Raichand A/W ShriFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 194HSection 250Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

observed by the AO that the assessee earned the income under the head “Income 4 Aravind Arunachalam Vellore from Business and Profession” and “Income from Other Sources”. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 74, 89,901/-. The assessee being aggrieved with this order

Income Tax Officer, Ward 4.1, Thane vs. Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Maryadt

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2241/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Jain, Sr. DR
Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

appeal 3. During the course assessment the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has allocated certain expenses between the business income and income from other sources and that assessee has claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(d) against the business income and a deduction under section ... against the income from other sources. The income from other sources is arising out of income earned from commission and interest from MSEB and Bajaj Insurance and income from business is from the interest income earned from deposits with cooperative banks. The AO held that the assessee has allocated higher

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Thane vs. Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedi Maryadit, Vasai

ITA 1961/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.918/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Jeevika, First Floor, Rev. Fr. Raskina Marg, Post-Nirmal, Tal-Vasai, District-Palghar, Maharashtra-401304. Pan : Aacaj1997J Vs. Ito, Circle-4 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, A Wing, Road No. 16Z, Thane (W), Maharashtra-400604. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.2441/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ito, Circle-4 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, A Wing, Road No. 16Z, Thane (W), Maharashtra-400604. Vs. Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Jeevika, First Floor, Rev. Fr. Raskina Marg, Post-Nirmal, Tal-Vasai, District-Palghar, Maharashtra-401304. Pan : Aacaj1997J Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.917/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jeevan Vikas Nagri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Jeevika, First Floor, Rev. Fr. Raskina Marg, Post-Nirmal, Tal-Vasai, District-Palghar, Maharashtra-401304. Pan : Aacaj1997J Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-4 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, A Wing, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Estate, Thane (W), Maharashtra- 400604. 2

Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

appeal 3. During the course assessment the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has allocated certain expenses between the business income and income from other sources and that assessee has claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(d) against the business income and a deduction under section ... against the income from other sources. The income from other sources is arising out of income earned from commission and interest from MSEB and Bajaj Insurance and income from business is from the interest income earned from deposits with cooperative banks. The AO held that the assessee has allocated higher

Geeta Sharma, Shahjahanpur vs. ITO-1(4), Shahjahanpur

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

ITA 373/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Geeta Sharma V. Income Tax Officer 1(4) C/O M/S Neeraj Foods Trading Shahjahanpur Company Moh. Matani Shahjahanpur Tan/Pan:Beeps6201L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.4.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed Her Return Of Income In Itr-3 On 31.10.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,69,770/- After Claiming Deduction Under Section 80C & 80Tta Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) At Rs.1,53,970/- Out Of Gross Total Income Shown At Rs.7,23,739/- Consisting Of Profits & Gains From Business At Rs.7,19,769/- & Income From Other Sources At Rs.3,970/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.17,97,270/- By Making Disallowance Of Rs.2,37,412/- On Account Of Interest Paid

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 80C

gross total income shown at Rs.7,23,739/- consisting of profits and gains from business at Rs.7,19,769/- and income from other sources at Rs.3,970/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.17,97,270/- by making disallowance

Shailesh Kumar Gupta, Lucknow vs. CIT (A), Lucknow

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

ITA 190/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Shailesh Kumar Gupta V. Cit(A) 584Ka/66, Behind Masjid Lucknow Jail Road, Bangla Bazar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Alvpg5898C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri A. K. Dubey, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Dubey, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

would be 25,78,363/- 5. The CIT (A) NFAC has erred in confirming the order of AO and making the addition under income from other sources, as appellant is engaged in trading of soaps and detergents and having no other income since last many years ... permitted to treat this income from other sources and levy the tax u/s 115BBE of the Act as he has sole source of income. 5. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has not afforded sufficient opportunity to the assessee to submit the confirmation of parties

B.K Engineers, Khanna vs. DCIT, ACIT Central Cir-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 644/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 644/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 B.K Enterprises, Vs. The Dcit / Acit, बनाम Central Circle 1, Bullepur Road, Ludhiana Near Golden Grain Club, G.T. Road, Khanna "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaefb4147M अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, JCIT Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133Section 69A

Security Assessment by DCIT /ACIT Central Circle -1 Ludhiana and She assessed 644-Chd-2023 – B.K. Engineers, Ludhiana 4 surrendered Income as Income from other sources Invoking the provision of Sec 69 /Sec 69A of Income Tax Act, and assessed the same as per provisions of Sec 115BBE of Income ... activities is not upon the AO. Therefore, there can be no presumption against the deeming fiction u/s 68 to 69D to hold that income / investment, whose source is not explained, will still be classified as income under any head u/s 14. It would be, therefore, impermissible to attempt and classify

Gajanand Vithoba Bankar, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pandharpur

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

ITA 993/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

arguments advanced by the assessee and asked the assessee to explain why the amount of Rs.89,00,913/- should not be treated as income from other sources and added to the total income of the assessee by recording as under: “7.1 The assessee is running a medical store ... amount of Rs.89,00,913/- (80,00,000+3,17,200 +5,83,713) should not be treated as income from other sources and added to the total income of the assessee. The reply submitted by the assessee is not acceptable.” 6. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee

Gajanand Vithoba Bankar, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pandharpur

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

ITA 992/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

arguments advanced by the assessee and asked the assessee to explain why the amount of Rs.89,00,913/- should not be treated as income from other sources and added to the total income of the assessee by recording as under: “7.1 The assessee is running a medical store ... amount of Rs.89,00,913/- (80,00,000+3,17,200 +5,83,713) should not be treated as income from other sources and added to the total income of the assessee. The reply submitted by the assessee is not acceptable.” 6. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee

Ajit Mohandas, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 610/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.610/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ajit Mohandas Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 2(2) Pan:Aehpm6928E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kr Sriharsha, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri KR Sriharsha, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 57

bank interest certificates, loan sanction letters etc. The issue under verification in limited scrutiny was that of large deduction claimed u/s 57 in income from other sources. The Assessing Officer noticed that the total interest claimed by the assessee for the impugned A.Y is Rs.83,38,693/-. The Assessing Officer ... thus completed the assessment by disallowing the entire interest expenses claimed from “income from other sources” and assessed the total income at Rs.1,21,53,605/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) but could not succeed, on the ground