“income from other sources”

Computility India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Computility India Private Limited Ito, Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, 17Th Floor, Plot No. 209, Mumbai-400 020 Atlanta Building, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

Officer ('A.O.' for short) observed that the assessee has declared interest income of Rs.23,088/- and license fee of Rs.81,79,437/- as income from other sources and had claimed business expenditure resulting in a loss of Rs.8,31,698/-. The ld. A.O. held that the license fee receipt ought ... taxed under the head ‘income from house property’ and the interest income as ‘income from other sources’ for the reason that the assessee has no business income or any business activity during the year under consideration. The ld. A.O. passed the assessment order dated

Mildred Ponnoth, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (International Tax)-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: MS.KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

builder under re-development agreement with the society in which assessee owned a flat. Draft assessment order adding Rs.10,36,000/- as ‘income from other sources’ was prepared. After considering the assessee’s objections, the Hon’ble DRP issued directions u/s.144C(5) of the Act to treat sum of Rs.10 ... income from other sources’. Final assessment order u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act was accordingly passed on 24/02/2024. 3. Before us ld. AR filed written submissions as well as copy of the re-development agreement under which hardship allowance has been paid to the assessee. Several decisions

Huhtamaki India Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 6, Mumbai

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeι.Τ.Α No.2668/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Huhtamaki India Limited A-802, Cresenzo, C-38/39 G Block, Brandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai Pan: Aaact0086E Appellant Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-6, Mumbai 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mahrishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Shrisolgy Jose T. Kottaram(Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2024 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee, J.M: Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of Thelearned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mumbai-6 (For Brevity, ‘Ld.Pcit') Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act'), For Assessment Year 2018-19, Date Of Order21.03.2024.The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The Order Of The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (In Short, ‘The A.O.') Passed Under Section 143(3)Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Date Of Order19/04/2021. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

adopted Ind-AS? Answer: ICDS shall apply for computation of taxable income under the head" Profit and gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources" under the Income Tax Act. This is irrespective of the accounting standards adopted by companies i.e. either Accounting Standards or Ind-AS" Accordingly

Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 2645/Mum/2024

Particulars Amount in INR Amount Allowed as Deduction/Considered separately - (A) 244A Interest on Income tax Refund - considered separately and offered to tax under Income from other sources 5,257,803 Actual expense of Employee Stock Option exercised during the year 135,061,022 As per IND AS Notional Interest income ... deduction u/s 35DDA 58,510,841 2,830,731,977 Income from Business or Profession 7,426,802,662 Income from other sources 244A Interest on Refund 5,257,803 Interest Income 276,423,878 Less: Tax free Interest income 22,221,350 254,202,528 259,460,330 Total

Shree Krishna Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exm Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, an appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

impugned assessment order, the assessee wrongly posted in return Schedule AI amount to Rs.62,90,473/- as income from other sources. The assessee further filed revised return for rectification of the mistake in return of income. But assessee made the same mistake in revised return and declared the income from ... that the assessee has made a mistake during filing of return of income by declaring the amount of Rs.62,90,473/- as “Income from other sources” which is taxable in the hands of the assessee. The same mistake was repeated in revised return also. The computation was filed

Raheja Chambers Premisese Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 26(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. Ground No. 3, 4 and 5 raised by the Appellant are allowed; and therefore, Ground No

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

irrespective of the fact that such interest income is taxable as ‘profits and gains of business’ or as ‘income from other sources’ since Section 80P(2)(d) uses the expression ‘any income’ and not ‘profits & gains of business’. 4.3. Further, in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank

Jitendra Vanigota, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 233/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Jitendra Vanigota Vs. Ito, Ward 20(2)(1) 76, New Municipal Piramal Chambers Building, Shuklaji Mumbai. Street, Kamathipura Mumbai-400 008. Pan : Abopj3841P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Siddharth Kothari Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Appellant Against The Appellate Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2020 – 21 Dated 28/11/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 25/4/2023 Passed Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) By The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (The Learned Ao) Was Dismissed. Therefore, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Show That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Regularly Assessed To Income Tax. During The Year The Assessee Has Shown Income In The Form Of Remuneration, Interest On Capital & Share Of Profit From Partnership Firm. The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 29/12/2024 At A Total Income Of ₹ 12,50,380/–. 3. Assessee Has Entered Into An Agreement With The Builder In The Year 2013 To Purchase Of Flat. This Flat Was Registered On 22/11/2019 & The Value Of The Said Flat Was Taken At Rs 183,20,000. The Market Value Of The Said Flat Is ₹ 25,264,500/– Thus There Was A Difference Of ₹

amount equal to 10% of the consideration than such amount should be considered as an income chargeable to income tax under the head income from other sources. If the parties have agreed to an agreement prior to the year where the amount of consideration is fixed, and consideration is paid

Vaibhavi Vinod Ghosalkar, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 42(1)(5), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Vaibhavi Vinod Ghosalkar Vs. The Income Tax Officer Flat Number 401, Fourth Ward 32 (3) (5) Mumbai Floor Room Number 803, Eighth Kumar Kunj Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Daulat Nagar Road Number C – 41 & C – 43, G-Block 9 Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali ( E ) Bandra (East) Mumbai – 66 Mumbai – 51. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agcpg0972D Assessee By : Ms Shruti Kalyanikar Revenue By : Shri Rajnish Yadav , Sr Dr

declaring total income of Rs. 269,800/–. Assessee during the year has shown income under the head income from business or profession and income from other sources. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny by issue of notice under section 143 (2) of the act on 19/9/2017 to verify

Ajay Baburam Gupta, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ajay Baburam Gupta Vs. The Income Tax Officer 2, Sunvihar Chs Ltd Ward 34 (1) (1), Mumbai Plot No 153 Room Number 803, Eighth Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Sector 12 Vashi C – 41 & C – 43, G-Block Navi Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex, 400703 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 51. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajipg4853E

earned salary income of Rs. 171,220 and has earned income from house property of loss of Rs 2 lakhs as well as income from other sources of Rs. 144,354/- filed his return of income on 30/3/2018 at total income of Rs. nil after claiming deduction

Dhanvarsha Nagri Sahakari Patasantha Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(3), Navi Mumbai

Accordingly, in view of paragraph 10 to 15 above, disallowance of INR.32,63,969/- is deleted and claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Act as made by the Appellant is allowed

Bench: the Tribunal. Therefore, the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. We note that the Appellant has raised the following grounds in the

irrespective of the fact that such interest income is taxable as ‘profits and gains of business’ or as ‘income from other sources’ since Section 80P(2)(d) uses the expression ‘any income’ and not ‘profits & gains of business’. In the case of Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-operative Society

Dhanvarsha Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(1)(3), Navi Mumbai

surplus fund kept with co-operative banks and not in other Co-operative Societies. 3. Treating the income of Rs.36,52,853/- as income from other sources u/s 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 4. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made