← 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

Snnehshilp Constructions, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Nagpur

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

ITA 413/NAG/2023[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2005-2006

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

For Appellant: Shri Milind BhusariFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 40

learned CIT(A) held that the estimation of net income @ 8% on gross contract receipt is correct. However, with regard to the income from other sources from sub–contract, the learned CIT(A) took note of the order passed 263 of the Act by the learned CIT and directed ... Assessing Officer to exclude the income from other sources for estimation of the net profit from contract receipts. Against the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal decided the appeal of the assessee vide

Rohan Bloodstock Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1761/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271Section 37(1)Section 69C

Appeal) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing set- off of losses under the head business profession against income from other sources. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred

Nidhi Prashant Asrani, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1662/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Biradar, A/RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D/R

Oxygen Services (India) Pvt Ltd has been declared in Profit & Loss A/c and Commission Income from M/s Nidhi Enterprise has been declared in Income From Other Sources. I.T.A. No. 1662/Mum/2024 2 4. The appellant pray that the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds the payments made

M/S Mahalaxmi Engineering Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1583/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. K Shivram
Section 143(3)Section 37

from providing services, maintenance and amenity to the let out property occupants amounting to Rs.1,10,04,000/- was shown under the head ‘income from other sources'. The receipt pertaining to antenna charges amounting to Rs.7,82,852/- was also shown under the head ‘income from other sources'. The present ... further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) however, restricted the claim of the expenses claimed against maintenance charges receipts under the head ‘income from other sources' and only allowed part relief to the assessee. 5. On further appeal by the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ( In short the ITAT) restored

Uday Jawahar Kotnis, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 1/PUN/2024[2017 - 2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 2(27)Section 234ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

learned AO has erred on facts and in law in making an addition of Rs.1,75,00,000/- as commission under the head income from other sources. 2. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal or add to the same, if deemed necessary ... case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the following issue :- “Deduction/ Exemption from Capital Gains, Investment in immovable property & deduction against income from other sources.” 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, statutory notice was issued to the assessee & in reply assessee furnished necessary information & documents. After considering

Spr Infrastructure India Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 128/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2011-12 Spr Infrastructure India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Limited, Circle 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccd4913G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar 09.07.2024 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.AR
Section 144Section 148Section 250

natural justice. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO cannot make an addition under the head income from other sources after estimating the business income at 12%, which is invalid and bad in law. 3 10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have

Palanisamy Rani, Erode vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1490/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Principal Commissioner Of Palanisamy Rani, V. Income Tax, 38, Emm Road-2, Chennimalai Coimbatore. Road, Erode – 638 001. [Pan:Biqpr-2991-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

04/02/2019 and declared a total income of Rs.40,40,240/- (Rs.39,17,794/- from Long Term Capital gain and Rs.1,22,450/- as Income from other sources). The case was selected for Limited scrutiny assessment through CASS and issued statutory notices to the assessee and concluded the assessment U/s.143

Govind Sharan Rawat, Jaipur vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 590/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143Section 56

declared total agricultural income of 2 SHRI GOVIND SHARAN RAWAT VS ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR Rs.67,37,030/- as income from other sources u/s 56 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) is wrong, unjust ... charging Agriculture Income of Rs. 35,86,476 out of declared total agriculture income of Rs. 67,37,030 as income from other sources under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act 3 SHRI GOVIND SHARAN RAWAT VS ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR 2.5 In this regard learned AR apart

Raj Kumar Kandoi, Jaipur vs. ACIT Central Circle 3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 575/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 57

erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,92,939/- by disallowing of interest expenses which has been claimed against income from other sources.’’ 2 RAJ KUMAR KANDOI VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR 2.1 Apropos Solitary Ground of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- Decision:- The appellant has claimed interest expenses on business loan against the income from other sources. In this case, no direct nexus has been proved by the appellant to establish that the interest expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively

Satish Chandra Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 509/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69

case of Krishna Agarwal vs. ITO in ITA No. 53/JODH/2021 dt. Sep 7, 2021 (2021) 63 CCH 0048 Jodh Trib held that:- “Income from undisclosed sources—Unexplained cash—Assessee derives income from renting of commercial property and other income under head "income from other sources" and filed her return ... assessee by observing as under:- ‘’6. DECISION The first two grounds relate to the addition of Rs 9,00,000 as income from undisclosed sources. The fact remains that during the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the appellant had deposited cash

J C Home Tex, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 7, Jaipur

ITA 292/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Sri. A. S. Srinath (HUF), Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga

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

ITA 228/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeya.S. Srinath (Huf) The Income Tax Officer No. 1, Mallikarjuna Nilaya Ward 1 & Tps 1St Cross, Hosamane Jail Road Vs. No.75, 100 Feet Road Shivamogga 577201 Gopal Gowda Exten. Pan – Aamha9965J Shivamoga 577201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) Dated 09.01.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/250/2023-24/1059510032(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Authorities Below Is Against The Facts Of The Case & Passed On Assuming The Facts Which Are Unrealistic. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Provisions Of The Law, The Assessing Officer Erred In Estimating The Agricultural Expenditure At A Certain Percentage Of Agricultural Income Is Against The Fact, As The Increase In The Gross Receipts May Be For Various Reasons, Which Are Not Dependent On Agricultural Expenditure.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250

erred in estimating the agricultural expenditure at a higher amount than the amount claimed by the Appellant and then treating/deeming such expenditure as income from other sources as against the fact that in records of the department, there is no information that the Appellant is having income other than ... agricultural income for deeming the income from other sources. 6. For these and other reasons which may be adduced at the time of the hearing, this Honourable Bench is requested to delete the addition made by the A.O. As the A.O estimates the expenditure, assuming that the expenditure varies

Ajay Baburam Gupta, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Income Tax Department

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2312/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Prasham DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69B

hearing of the appeal” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and earnedincome from salary and income from Other Sources during impugned assessment year. The assessee filed the return under section 139(1) by declaring total income at Rs.17,48,300/-. The case

Nalni Sanjeev Nadkarni, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1981/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

Section 147Section 234BSection 274

received by the Appellant as hardship Compensation. He has further erred in confirming the said addition to the income under the head income from other sources. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the said addition ought to have been deleted, being in the nature ... Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs 25,21,508/- received by the appellant as hardship compensation under the head income from other sources, instead of long-term capital gain. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the said addition ought to have

Antony Leo Sequeira, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, Grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2010/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Shri Om Kandalkar , Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 132Section 148Section 250Section 68

declaring total income at Rs. 38,34,930/- consisting of income under the head ‘salary’, income from house property and income from other sources. During the year under consideration, assessee claimed exempt long term capital gain u/s. 10(38) of the Act amounting to Rs. 5, 03, 98,853/-. This

Shiv Kumar Jolly, Jammu vs. DCIT (Intl. Tax), Chandigarh

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

ITA 721/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rishab Singla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 69A

which exceeds Rs. 50,000/-, the whole of the aggregate value of such sum shall be chargeable to income tax under the head income from other sources. However as per clause (a) of the second proviso to Section 56(2)(vii) of the IT Act, if the said amount ... sons viz. Shri Vishal Jolly and Shri Vikas Jolly which is evident from the bank statement itself. The said amount qualifies as income from other source under Section 56(2)(vii)(a) which is exempted from income tax under clause (a) of the second proviso to Section

ACIT, Circle, Shimla vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1449/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 54F

salary from the said company. The Assessee has also declared Long Term Capital Gains from sale of shares, loss from house property and income from other sources. In this case, the Assessee filed his return of income declaring income at Rs. 89,59,650/- after claiming deduction

Rajasthan Jain Mitra Parishad, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi, Jurisdictional AO: the ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 337/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee as undisclosed income under the head ‘income from other sources’ u/s 69 as unexplained investment for which no explanation and supporting documents were furnished by the assessee, and income of the assessee was assessed

M/S. Labland Private Limited, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysuru

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

ITA 608/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeylabland Biotechs Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer #01, 8Th Km, Krs Road Ward - 1(1), Mysuru Vs. Metagalli, Mysuru 570016 Pan – Aaacl2892A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062548837(1) Dated 13.03.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Confirming The Assessment Of A Sum Of Rs.87,39,282/- As Income From Other Sources Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2.1 The Learned Cit[A]/Nfac Failed To Appreciate That The Income Derived By The Appellant Is From Agriculture Operations, Which Is Exempt U/S.10[1] Of The Act Read With Explanation Of Section 2[1] Of The Act & Consequently, The Learned Cit[A]/Nfac

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 250

Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC for short] is not justified in confirming the assessment of a sum of Rs.87,39,282/- as income from other sources under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 2.1 The learned CIT[A]/NFAC failed to appreciate that ... claim for income from Agriculture cannot be accepted. For these reasons the income of the company is brought to tax under the income from other sources. Accordingly, the assessment is concluded by making an addition of Rs. 87,39,282/- under the income from other sources and thereby disallowing

Shri Sharanabasaveshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, Halingali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward and Tps

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

ITA 596/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri.Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 19Section 250Section 56Section 57Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

relating to interest income from co-operative bank of Rs.24,07,420/ deductible u/s 80P(2)(d) and holding it as income from other sources. 2. Without prejudice Interest income from Bagalkot District Co- op Bank is based on statutory requirement as per section 19 2 Shree Sharanbasaveshwar Credit Souharda ... Income Tax Act, 1961 and added the same to the total income of the appellant as Income from Other Sources. Further the AO was also of the opinion that in view of the Order in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubballi vs. Totagars Cooperative Sale