← 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

Rajdeep Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 572/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Makadia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

services provided in respect of letting out of premises by Rajdeep Construction Pvt Ltd., AY 2014-15 & 2013-14 treating it as income from other sources instead of income from house property. We draw facts from the appeal in ITA No.571/Mum/2024 for Assessment Year 2014-15. Return of income ... under the head ‘Income from House Property’ in the return filed by the assessee. However, ld. Assessing Officer treated the same as income from other sources, since assessee could not furnish required documents and details. Aggrieved, assessee went into appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 3. From para

Rajdeep Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 571/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Makadia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

services provided in respect of letting out of premises by Rajdeep Construction Pvt Ltd., AY 2014-15 & 2013-14 treating it as income from other sources instead of income from house property. We draw facts from the appeal in ITA No.571/Mum/2024 for Assessment Year 2014-15. Return of income ... under the head ‘Income from House Property’ in the return filed by the assessee. However, ld. Assessing Officer treated the same as income from other sources, since assessee could not furnish required documents and details. Aggrieved, assessee went into appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 3. From para

Allied Computers Intl. Asia Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1198/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 1198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) M/S. Allied Computers Vs. Acit, Cc-2(2) Intl. Asia Limited 8Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan Office No. 8, 5 Th Floor M. K. Road Block A, Aidun Building. Mumbai-400 020. 1St Dhobi Talao Lane Mumbai-400 002. Pan : Aadca4412E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 115JSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

company was actually engaged in business activities , the business loss & income u/s 115JB is considered as NIL. However, interest income is taxed as income from other sources. Since the assessee is not engaged in any actual business activities but was involved in issuing bogus accommodation entries, the TDS claim

Meena Bharat Gohil, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward No 20(2)(2), Lalbaug Parel

In the result, these grounds of appeal of the assessee are restored back to the file of AO

ITA 4803/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 4803/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Meena Bharat Gohil Ito, Ward-20(2)(2) Room No. 60, New Piramal Chamber Bhawan Chawl, Cotton Mumbai. Green, Veer Tanaji Malusare Marg, Kala Chowki S.O. Mumbai-400 033. Pan : Ajnpg2509G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satya Prakash Singh Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By Mrs. Meena Bharat Gohil (The Assessee/Appellant) Against The Appellate Order By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac, Delhi (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2017 – 18 Dated 7/11/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (The Act) Dated 24/12/2019 Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward – 20 (2) (2), Mumbai (The Learned Ao) Was Dismissed. 2. Assessee Aggrieved With The Same Is In Appeal Before Us Challenging The Order Passed By The Learned That Appellate Authority For Passing The Order Can The Addition Under Section 69A In Respect Of Rs. 4,605,000/- Cash Deposited During Demonetization In The Bank Account Of The Assessee Despite Providing Sufficient Explanation With Page 1 Of 6

Section 115BSection 133Section 142Section 143Section 69A

individual who filed its return of income on 8/1/2018 declaring total income of Rs. 297,770/- showing income from business and income from other sources. This return was processed earlier but later on picked up for scrutiny by issue of notice under section 143 (2) of the act on 18th/8/2018

Bajaj Holdngs & Investment Ltd ( Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

arised in this appeal as follows: Ground No. 1: Taxability of surplus on redemption of treasury bills as Interest Income under the head “Income from Other Source” instead of “Capital Gains” Rs.10,17,750: 3. In the return of income the assessee has offered the amount of Rs.10 ... repayment of treasury bills under the head capital gains. However, the AO has taxed the surplus as interest income under the head income from other sources. 4. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. During

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2899/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

arised in this appeal as follows: Ground No. 1: Taxability of surplus on redemption of treasury bills as Interest Income under the head “Income from Other Source” instead of “Capital Gains” Rs.10,17,750: 3. In the return of income the assessee has offered the amount of Rs.10 ... repayment of treasury bills under the head capital gains. However, the AO has taxed the surplus as interest income under the head income from other sources. 4. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. During

Sanjay Kumar Singh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 453/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Ray, Advocate, Shri S. N. Patra & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

being the difference between the valuation for the purpose of stamp duty and the transaction amount should not be treated as income from other sources as per the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) and added to the income of AY 2020-21. Since no reply was filed, therefore ... added on account of capital gains. As regards income from other sources, a sum of Rs.1,46,23,369/- was also added u/s. 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A) no compliance was made despite repeated opportunities being provided and the Ld. CIT(A) relying

Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O, Ward-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 541/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Himadri Mukhopadhyay, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

recomputed the FMV at Rs.886.86 in place of Rs.781/- adopted by the assessee and added a sum of Rs.63,62,609/- as income from other sources u/s. 56(2)(viia) of the Act and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The AO also observed

Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 540/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Himadri Mukhopadhyay, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

recomputed the FMV at Rs.886.86 in place of Rs.781/- adopted by the assessee and added a sum of Rs.63,62,609/- as income from other sources u/s. 56(2)(viia) of the Act and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The AO also observed

Ashok Tower " D" Co Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the orders of the lower authorities are reversed and the learned AO is directed to grant deduction to the assessee on interest income earned from cooperative banks u/s 80 P (2) (d) o...

ITA 434/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am Ashok Tower “D” Co Op Ito Ward 20(1)(2) Housing Society Ltd. Piramal Chambers, Cs No. 63/74/07 Parel Sewri Vs. Division, Dr B. A. Road, Dr. Ss. Rao Marg, Parel, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadaa0962B

For Appellant: Shri Virendra MishraFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143Section 2Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

earned interest income of ₹ 1,472,930 from its investment with cooperative banks which has not been offered for tax under the head income from other sources. The claim of the assessee is that same interest income is eligible for deduction under section 80 P (2) (d) of The Income

Rajesh Govind Rao, Mumbai vs. ITO-42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 269/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 68

passed by the Income Tax Officer 32(1)(6), Mumbai (The A.O.) in making addition of Rs.1,89,81,500/- being income from other sources u/s 68, ignoring the submission by the appellant that:- a) The assessee's family has sold the property at the prevailing market rate: b) Stamp

Murude Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1605/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

computation submitted during the assessment computation submitted during the assessment 50,50,068 50,50,068 Less: Income chargeable under Income from Other Sources Less: Income chargeable under Income from Other Sources 47,09,560 47,09,560 Income(Loss) from Business Income(Loss) from Business ... Income from Other Sources : B) Income from Other Sources : Interest on bank deposits Interest on bank deposits 47,09,560 47,09,560 Gross Total Income 50,50,068 50,50,068 Less: Deductions under Chapter VI Less: Deductions under Chapter VI-A Deductions u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) Deductions u/s.80P

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Iifl Home Finance Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 4 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1297/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt (SR.DR.)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43BSection 43DSection 69CSection 80M

such information available in the audited P&L Account and Balance-sheet. But due to lack of evidence, the income is treated as Income from other sources and added with the total income of the assessee. The Ld.DR drawn our attention in assessment order paras 3.4.4 to 3.4.6 which

Late Radha Kishin Bhatia (Through Leagl Heir Kishin M Bhatia), Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 1(2)1, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.1084/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1084/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant – Addl.CITDR
Section 144Section 250

passed by the Income Tax Officer – (IT)-1(2)(1), Mumbai (The A.O) by making addition of Rs. 3,00,403/- to income from other sources based on 26AS of the assessee:- a. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there were duplicate entries appearing in the 26AS ... impugned amount. c. Copy of 26AS was filed while filing the appeal. Therefore, Appellant therefore prays that addition of Rs.3,00,403/- to income from other sources based on 26AS of the assessee may please be deleted. The appellant craves leave to add to, and / or amend the above grounds

Jitendra Udaylal Jain, Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4543/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

Assessing Officer found that the assessee has disclosed the income from salary, income from house property, business income, short term capital gains and income from other sources. Further the assessee has disclosed and claimed the exemption U/sec10(38) of the Act being long term capital gains on sale of shares ... assessees who belong to H group, AO did not accept the capital gains and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income from undisclosed sources under s. 68-Not justified-Fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of the same companies through

Irla Co-Op Hsg Soceity Ltd, Mumbai vs. Ward 25(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4269/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Irla Co-Op Hsg Society Vs. Ito, Ward 25(2)(5) Limited, 191/A, Prime Maharashtra – 400054 Mall Irla, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai – 400056 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaai4878F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Pramod Parida Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 13.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23.11.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Disallowance U/S 43B- 61,01,040/- I) The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Statutory Liabilities Without Appreciating That The Same Had Been Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) & Further Erred In Holding That The Appellant, A Co-Op Housing Society (Chs), Is Doing Business Activity, Therefore, As Sec 438 Is Not Applicable On The Face It Being Eligible For The Benefit U/S 80P, The Disallowance Of Rs.61.01.040/- Is Uncalled For & The Same May Be Deleted Ii) Without Prejudice To Above, The Id Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Concept Of Mutuality Does Not Apply To The Appellant Where There Is Close Nexus Of All Its Funds Flow Are Utilized Exclusively For The Benefit Of Its Members, Hence The Disallowance Made May Be Deleted As Consistency Needs To Be Respected. 2. Taxability U/S. 22 Or U/S. 56- Rental Or Hire Charges Rs.8,73,634/-

For Appellant: Pramod ParidaFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24Section 43BSection 56Section 80P

used to put up advertisement hoarding. Therefore, income of the assessee society for giving space of rent is to be assessed as income from other sources and no income from house property. Since, the income for providing space on rent was assessed as income from other sources, therefore, the deduction ... Society Ltd. VS. ITO, Ward 25(2)(5) only, therefore, the balance amount of Rs.3,37,292/- was added to the income from other sources of the assessee society. 4. During the course of assessment the AO has also noticed that as per the audit report an amount of Rs.61

Guruvastu Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5850/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Guruvastu Properties P. Ltd. Dcit – 1(1)(4) 47, 7Th Floor, Tardeo Ac Market 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 034 M K Road, Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri Hiten M. VasantFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 15JSection 250Section 45Section 54E

Rs.21,10,711/- having derived income from long term capital gain (LTCG for short) on sale of land and income from other sources. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon the assessee

Shri Gopi Kishan Omarvaish Dharamda Trust, Kanpur vs. ITO, Exemption Waed, Kanpur

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

ITA 340/LKW/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Gopi Kishan Omarvaish V. The Income Tax Officer Dharmada Trust Exemption Ward 26/49, Birhana Road Kanpur Kanpur Pan:Aaatg4357Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt. Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 06 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)
Section 11(3)Section 143(3)

THAT THE LD.AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 55,25,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME SHOWN IN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4. In the present appeal before us, the assessee has raised grounds No.1 & 2 of the appeal, wherein it has been contended that both the Assessing Officer

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Vadodara, Vaodara vs. Btw-Atlanta Transformers India Private Limited, Bharuch

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department in ITA

ITA 295/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, CA &For Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

interest income holding that the same is capital receipts ignoring the facts that interest income on FD is assessable under the head ‘Income from other sources’ as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Autokast Ltd [2001] 116 Taxman 244 (SC) and despite ... facts and findings as discussed above in this order, the Revenue’s claim of treating interest income of Rs.2,99,42,445/- as “income from other sources” is dismissed, after applying the finding elaborated in adjudicating Revenue’s appeal vide ITA No. 294/Ahd/2024 as above, in this order, by treating

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circl-3, Vadodara vs. Btw -Atlanta Transformers India Private Limited, Bharuch

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department in ITA

ITA 294/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, CA &For Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

interest income holding that the same is capital receipts ignoring the facts that interest income on FD is assessable under the head ‘Income from other sources’ as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Autokast Ltd [2001] 116 Taxman 244 (SC) and despite ... facts and findings as discussed above in this order, the Revenue’s claim of treating interest income of Rs.2,99,42,445/- as “income from other sources” is dismissed, after applying the finding elaborated in adjudicating Revenue’s appeal vide ITA No. 294/Ahd/2024 as above, in this order, by treating