← 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

Anil Tukaram Waghmare, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Panvel Circle, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 534/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalanil Tukaram Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Waghmare, Aayakar Bhavan, D 702, Plot No.79/80, Opp Khanda Colony, Green Heritage, New Panvel, Sector 20, Kharghar Navi Mumbai-410206. Navi Mumbai-410210. Pan/Gir No. Aaspw9600J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Dharan Gandhi.Ar Revenue By Shri.Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi/Cit(A), Passed U/Sec 144 & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Brought To The Knowledge Of The Bench, That There Is A Delay Of 43 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & The Assesse Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. Whereas, The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.

Section 133(6)Section 144

Rs.1,84,500/-. 4. Ld. CIT (A), erred in facts and in law by confirming additions of Rs 30,474/- under the head income from other sources even though the appellant had filed return of income during the assessment proceedings. The LD AO did not assessed the income offered ... addition of rent under house property income of Rs. 2,25,500/-, (iv) addition on interest income under income from other sources of Rs.30,474/- and (v) unexplained income credited in the bank accounts aggregating to Rs. 97,58,636/- and the A.O has assessed the total income of Rs.1

Smt. Pawan Paras Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, ground number 6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction, in view of this, other grounds are not required to be adjudicated hence dismissed

ITA 471/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: BeforeShri Prashant Maharishi( (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 131Section 143Section 68

issuing notice under section 143 (2) on 26/7/2016. As per the return of income assessee has shown income from capital gain and income from other sources. The amount of capital gain of ₹ 3,152,330 was credited as income on sale of shares of Greencrest financial services Ltd during

Rajen Harshadrai Sanghavi, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (3) - 1, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and reassessment order is quashed

ITA 466/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 466/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) Rajen Harshadrai Sanghavi Vs. Ito 26(3)(1) 3, Garden View Apartment Kautilya Bhavan Dr. Ambedkar Road Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai-400 080 Bandra East, Mumbai Pan : Aaips5226J 400 051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee/Appellant Against The Appellate Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Being Additional Cit/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) – 2, Siliguri (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2013 – 14 Dated 7/12/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 21/12/2019 Passed By The Income Tax Officer , Ward 26 (3) (1), Mumbai (The Learned Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Wherein Claim Of Exemption Under Section 10 (38) Of The Act Of Rs. 1,657,645/– Was Denied, Was Dismissed. 2. Assessee Is Aggrieved & Is In Appeal Before Us Against The Assessment Order Denying The Exemption Under Section 10 (38) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Case Shows That Assessee Is An Individual Filed Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs. 269,000/– Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Of Long-Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 16,57,545/–. Roi

Section 10Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68

income for assessment year 2013 – 14 on 25/10/2013 declaring income of Rs 269,000. Income includes house property, business income, capital gain and income from other sources. Income with full exemption includes long-term capital gain of Rs. 21,628,193/– under section 10 (38) of income

Jyoti Deepak Gupta, Malabar Hill, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Comples

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

ITA 465/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 465/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2010-11) Jyoti Deepak Gupta Vs. Ito Ward 17(2)(1) 2, Girnar Apartments Kautilya Bhavan 10 Doongershi Road Bandra Kurla Complex Teenbati, Malbar Hill Bandra East Mumbai-400 006. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Akopg3428J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satya Prakash Singh Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of 12.08.2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

Section 131Section 133Section 144Section 147Section 148

from share trading in cash market segment and income of Rs. 149,011/– from trading in derivative segment is speculation income. The income from other sources of Rs. 12,085 was also added on the basis of statement received under section 133 (6) of the act. Total income was assessed

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. Evita Construction Pvt. Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3914/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dcit, Central Circle-1(2) Evita Construction Pvt. Limited 906, Pratishtha Bhavan, 514, Dalal Tower 211, Vs. Old Cgo Building, M K Road, Fpj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aabce 7779 C (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri Pradip Kapasi Assessee By Respondent By : Shri P. D. Chougule : 16.05.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2024

For Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

project. The assessee 4 DCIT vs. Evita Construction Pvt. Limited contends the same to be for commercial expediency and that the assessee had income from various sources such as share capital, interest free loans from promoters and from sales and that for the said reason the interest bearing funds ... Court and the Tribunal which held that the interest income out of such fund are to be treated as ‘business income’ and not ‘income from other sources’. It is also pertinent to point out that the ld. A.O. has failed to corroborate the fact that the FD made

Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahaakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

ITA 621/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.206/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Vs The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune. Block No.672/673/888/889, Fruit Section, Gultekadi Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaaas5493C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 R.W.S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 05.02.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Rejecting Deduction Under Section Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit [A] 80P(2)(A)(I) For A Sum Of Rs.55,21,056/- Being Entire Book Profit Of Appellant Society Without Appreciating The Fact That Earning Of Interest Is An Integral Part Of Society’S Business & Appellant Prays For Allowing Such Deduction.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 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

M/S. Suresh Aluminium, Bhopal vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhopal

In the result Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the

ITA 62/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Boradm/S Suresh Aluminium, Acit Central Circle-1, 10, Jyoti Shoping Compex, Bhopal Zone-I, Vs. Mp Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abefs0206M Assessee By S/Shri Yash Kukreja & H. Chimnani, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 69

income offered by the assessee during the survey is not on account of business income and is therefore liable to be taxed as income from other sources only. 3.2 Dissatisfied with the finding of Ld. CIT(A) now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel ... found at the assessee’s premises. He thus stated that this is not a case of any undisclosed investment or any other undisclosed income from other source other than the business activity carried by the assessee and is purely business income and therefore provisions of Section 115BBE

Anisha Karamchandani, Neemuch vs. ITO, Neemuch

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2011-

ITA 242/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Boradanisha Karamchandani, Income Tax Officer, 137, Khushbu, Neemuch Vs. Jawahar Nagar, Neemuch (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akrpk5859J Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

indicates that the assessee had offered Rs.1,91,848/- as share profit and included the same with other income mentioned under the head income from other sources. After including the income of Rs.1,91,848/-the total income generated in the return is Rs.2,52,688/-. So there remains

Sri. Haris Kalandan Mohammed, Mangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 878/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234

Rs.2,71,84,570/- assessed as deemed dividen& u/s2(22)(e) in the hands of the appellant and added under the head "Income from Other sources". 3.5 Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant was asked to furnish details of his shareholding and investment companies and in firms

Shree Lohana Mahaparishad, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward- 1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3165/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148

which ought to have been disallowed. The ld. Assessing Officer had noted that assessee had declared corpus donation of Rs. Nil and income from other sources of Rs.1,24,67,580/. Against this, it had claimed application of income of Rs.1,24,51,022/- resulting into income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 293/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

from staff loans and advances, interest income from advances to others and miscellaneous receipts of Rs. 129.03 lacs as business income instead of income from other sources without appreciating the fact that the nature of the income is of purely interest and not from any activities of business or profession ... appeal namely Interest income from staff loans and advances of Rs.119.88 lacs and Misc. Income of Rs.9.15 lacs as ‘business income’ instead of ‘Income from other sources’. I.T.A Nos. 166/Ahd/22 & 231/Ahd/24 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2020-21 Page No 7 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. . vs. DCIT

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 231/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

from staff loans and advances, interest income from advances to others and miscellaneous receipts of Rs. 129.03 lacs as business income instead of income from other sources without appreciating the fact that the nature of the income is of purely interest and not from any activities of business or profession ... appeal namely Interest income from staff loans and advances of Rs.119.88 lacs and Misc. Income of Rs.9.15 lacs as ‘business income’ instead of ‘Income from other sources’. I.T.A Nos. 166/Ahd/22 & 231/Ahd/24 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2020-21 Page No 7 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. . vs. DCIT

Bhavanji Jugaji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 974/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

known source of income and the same was duly submitted as the assessee is having source of income from house property, income from other sources and income from agricultural activity. Since the said aspects should have been taken into consideration and should have been verified by the Assessing Officer, therefore

The Jt.CIT, (OSD)Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 223/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

from staff loans and advances, interest income from advances to others and miscellaneous receipts of Rs. 129.03 lacs as business income instead of income from other sources without appreciating the fact that the nature of the income is of purely interest and not from any activities of business or profession ... appeal namely Interest income from staff loans and advances of Rs.119.88 lacs and Misc. Income of Rs.9.15 lacs as ‘business income’ instead of ‘Income from other sources’. I.T.A Nos. 166/Ahd/22 & 231/Ahd/24 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2020-21 Page No 7 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. . vs. DCIT

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 166/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

from staff loans and advances, interest income from advances to others and miscellaneous receipts of Rs. 129.03 lacs as business income instead of income from other sources without appreciating the fact that the nature of the income is of purely interest and not from any activities of business or profession ... appeal namely Interest income from staff loans and advances of Rs.119.88 lacs and Misc. Income of Rs.9.15 lacs as ‘business income’ instead of ‘Income from other sources’. I.T.A Nos. 166/Ahd/22 & 231/Ahd/24 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2020-21 Page No 7 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. . vs. DCIT

Bharti Maind Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Yavatmal vs. Income Tax Office, National E Assessment, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 160/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri P.M. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

80P2(d) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, after examining the case, has noted that the interest income earned by the assessee is income from other sources and not eligible for claiming deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) / 80P2(d) of the Act and the assessment was completed ... 80P2(d) of the Act. The case of the Assessing Officer is that, interest income received by the assessee is from income from other sources not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) / 80P2(d) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has come to the conclusion by following

Bharti Maind Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Yavatmal vs. Income Tax Officer, National E Assessment, Yavatmal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 159/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri P.M. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

80P2(d) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, after examining the case, has noted that the interest income earned by the assessee is income from other sources and not eligible for claiming deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) / 80P2(d) of the Act and the assessment was completed ... 80P2(d) of the Act. The case of the Assessing Officer is that, interest income received by the assessee is from income from other sources not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) / 80P2(d) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has come to the conclusion by following

Seemakurti Sarada, Rajam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234B

from business or profession’ in the intimation U/s. 143(1) of the Act as the appellant already admitted this amount under the head ‘income from other sources’ and ‘income from house property’. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” 4. 4 5. At the outset ... actually in the nature of ‘business profit’ and therefore they were rightly offered to tax by the assessee under the relevant heads ie., ‘income from other sources’ (Rs. 2,93,988/-) and ‘income from house property (Rs. 16,800/-). Therefore, the Ld. AR pleaded that the addition

Tirumala Surya Kumari, Srikakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 215/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.215/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Tirumala Surya Kumari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Srikakulam. Ward-1, Pan: Aezpt7686L Srikakulam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 08/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

case are that the assessee an individual deriving income from house property, income from business being income from wines and partnership firm besides income from other sources. The assessee e-filed her return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 31/10/2013 declaring an income

Chandana Mukherjee, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Burdwan

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

ITA 808/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Government valuation. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') added an amount of Rs. 4,31,600/- in respect of the income from other sources which have notional income of the appellant u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal before