“income from other sources”

Sneha Sangama Souharda Pattina Sahakari Niyamitha, Tumakur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2017-18

learned AO erred in disallowing deduction u/s 80 P(2)(d) of Rs. 20,01,217/- by considering the interest earned as Income from other sources ignoring the fact that the same is a business income and deduction allowed based on facts and circumstances of the case. Page ... learned AO erred in considering the commission earned of Rs. 26,109/-as Income from other sources ignoring the fact that the same is a business income and deduction allowed based on facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned AO failed to appreciate that the interest income earned

Bangady Co-Operative Agricultural Society Limited, Belthangady vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavbangady Co-Operative The Income Tax Officer Agricultural Society Ltd. Ward - 1, Puttur Indabettu Village, Bangady Post Vs. Belthangady 574214 Pan – Aaefb0377M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061393066(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Multipurpose Co- Operative Society Engaged In The Business Of Acceptance Of Deposits From Members, Lending Of Loans To Members & Providing Public Distribution Services. For The Year Under Consideration It Has Filed It Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2.96 Crores On 02.11.2017. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny After Issuing Statutory Notices. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao), Inter Alia, Observed That The Assessee Society Is Not Governed By The Principles Of Mutuality & Hence Deduction Claimed

PCIT v. Totgars Co-operative Sale Society [2017] 395 ITR 611 (Kar). The Ld AO has finally assessed the interest income as income from other sources without providing deduction of corresponding expenses. The AO also disallowed certain provisions made by the assessee on the ground that the same ... well as the ld. AO on two counts. a) In case interest income to be taxed under the head income from other sources the deduction of expenses to be allowed and remaining profits should be considered for deduction of 80(P)(2)(a)(i). b) The disallowance made

Sri. Venkateshwara Developers, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

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

under ‘’income from house property’’, Rs.6,30,38,931/- under‘’ income from capital gains’’ and Rs.2,76,78,077/- under ‘’income from other sources’’ including interest received on bank deposits. The notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee calling for certain details ... issued show notice cause notice on 23/4/2021 proposing to make an addition of Rs.2,24,28,827/- by disallowing the expenditure claimed against income from other sources. The asessee filed objection on 25/4/2021 against proposed disallowance with clarifications with regard to expenditure incurred and claimed

Printech Park Cluster Bangalore, Chamarajpet vs. CIT Exemptions Bangalore, Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavprintech Park Cluster-Bangalore The Income Tax Officer #84/1, Kspa-Xil Pttc (Exemption), Ward - 2 6Th Corss, 4Th Main, Vs. Bengaluru Chamarajpet, Bengaluru 560018 Pan – Aabtp8959N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kupendra Setty, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Anjala Sahu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Exm/F/Exm45/2003-24/1063255632(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 23.03.2024 Passed Under Section 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act).

assessee and contended that perusal of the receipt and expenditure accounts of the assessee would show that the assessee mainly drawing income from other sources and not from any charitable activity or activity of GPU. CIT-DR further contended that the assessee has not applied the funds in furtherance

Alnavar Credit Souhardha Co-Operative Limited, Alnavar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

assessee towards earning of interest Page 4 of 9 income because the revenue authorities have taxed the entire interest income as income from other sources u/s. 56. 6. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and he submitted that the interest income received by the assessee

Tarunsangar Vivedhoddeshagal Souhard Sahakari Limited, Bijapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

observed that interest income received from various banks is not attributable to business income and it is income from other sources and cost for earning such income has already been debited to P&L account. The AO also noted that assessee has received interest of Rs.56,06,699 from ... interest from banks which is income out of surplus funds and it is not the business income of the assessee and it is income from other sources. Accordingly, deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.36,85,964 was denied. The AO noted that the assessee

Bhadraiah Kallenahalli Dinesha, Mandya vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Mandya

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

assessee had not maintained books of accounts as specified u/s. 44AD of the act, and declared the contract receipts under the head “Income from other sources”. It was noted that the assessee estimated the income at 6% of the gross receipts and claimed expenditure of Rs.5 ... assessee has avoided providing the expenses details in the return of income by filing the wrong ITR and mentioning the business income as Income from other sources. This is deliberate evasion by the assessee. The accounts of the assessee and his computation has to be rejected as the expenses have

Global Security Services, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

income is not chargeable to tax under the head "profits and gains of business or profession" it will be assessed under the head "income from other sources." ** *** ** ** Page 8 of 14 44. There is no doubt that in Alom Extrusions, this court did consider the impact of deletion of second