“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

Mr. Dollar Chunilal Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7189/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()**

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50Section 54F

jewellery. It was further noted that during the year under consideration,the assessee had disclosed income under the heads "Income from Business" and "Income from Other Sources." - **2.4.** It was observed that theassessee had purchased an immovable property, namely IJMA, on 31.12.2004 for a consideration

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int) Tax Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6570/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailorient Overseas Container Line Limited, C/O Oocl (India) Private Limited, Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills, Powai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Aaaco5679E V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 3(2)(2), ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 244ASection 44B

Answer: ICDS is applicable to specified persons having income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession' or 'Income from other sources. Therefore, the relevant provisions of ICDS shall also apply to the persons computing income under the relevant presumptive taxation scheme. For example, for computing presumptive

Laxmi Kashinath Thanekar, Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4780/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

gain on sale of immovable Property in Current Assessment year i.e. Assessment year 2011-12. 2. The Ld Assessing Officer erred to consider Income from other sources on compensation received in Assessment Year (2011-12) for land acquisition against the part of land acquired by Govt. of Maharashtra

Asmeeta Infratech Limited, Bhiwandi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 2764/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

declaring a total income of Rs.NIL. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) by making addition of Rs.8,77,815/- under the head ‘Income from Other sources’.Penalty proceeding u/s 270A of the Act was initiated for Underreporting of income. The AO determined the under -reported income at Rs.15 ... subsequent appeal before the ld.CIT(A),it was submitted by the assessee that concerned clerk inadvertently forgot to punch the Income from Other sources of Rs.15,65,795/- although the same was considered at the time of preparation of computation of income. The mistake was due to human typographical error

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Sunita Chaudhary, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2124/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 147Section 260ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Vimla Devi Thakran, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8305/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vimla Devi Thakran, Vs. Income Tax Officer, I Tower, Ea-8, 6Th Floor, Tata Ward -43(2), Primanti, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-72, Gurgaon Pan: Agfpt4774R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Wadhwa, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

taxmann.com 301 (Del.) wherein the department has succeeded before their lordships that the impugned interest component ought to be assessed as income from “other” sources only. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contention. It emerges that this tribunal ... capital receipt' forming part of enhanced compensation as envisaged in section 45(5) of the Act to 'revenue receipt' chargeable to tax as income from other sources. The view taken by the Ld. AO that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act received by the assessee is exempt under

Mahender, Huda Colony, Hansi vs. Income Tax Ward-1, Hisar, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8139/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Naman Khannah, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3332/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18] Naman Khannah, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C-5, Pamposh Enclave, Central Circle-8, Greater Kailash-I, Vs New Delhi New Delhi-110048 Pan-Axapk5943R Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay Chawla, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2026

Section 115BSection 132Section 153C

filed the return of income declaring Income of Rs.12,18,840/-. The assessee had shown Income from Business, rental Income and Bank Interest, Income from Other Sources and Income from Other sources. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 08.12.2018 in the M/s H.S. Imper group

Centre for General Education Society, Ghaziabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2423/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhricentre For General Vs. Cit Exemption Education Society, Lucknow A-16, Site-3, Merrut Road Upside Indl. Area, Ghaziabad (Pan: Aaatc8262G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Govind Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Jitender Singh, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Govind Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

assessee is an educational trust and during the year under consideration the trust has earned income from academic fee, non-academic fee and income from other sources. The assessee filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year 2020-21 on 12.12.2020 and assessee’s case was selected

Cooperative Cane Deve. Union, Ltd., Haridwar vs. ITO, W- 1(3)(1), Haridwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 158/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year: 2019-20] Co-Operative Cane Development Vs Ito Union Limited, Jawalapur, Ward-1(3)(1) Vill. & P.O. Jawalapur, Distt.- Haridwar Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249407 Uttarakhand Pan-Aaaic0152B Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10076885 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Intimation Order Dated 02.12.2020 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Assessee Filed The Letter & Stated That The Written Submission Made Be Considered. Therefore, Ld. Sr. Dr Was Heard & Proceeded To Decide The Appeal Filed By The Assessee On The Basis Of Material Available On Record. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Constituted By The State Government, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members Who Are Agriculturists & Cane Growers Also, Marketing Of Agricultural Products & Purchase Of Agricultural Implements & Other Products Like Fertilizers, Insecticides Etc. Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.08.2019, Declaring Total Income At Nil & Claimed Deduction U/S 80P Of Inr 1,04,54,668/-. Thereafter, The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1), Assessed Total Income At Inr 1,04,54,668/- Where Deduction U/S 80P Was Not Provided To The Assessee Society.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P

Chapter- VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the following gross receipts aggregating Rs. 10454659/- shown under the head Income from other sources in the return for the year under consideration:- i. Others (so called commission received from the sugar factory/s against the activity of marketing ... Interest from deposits with banks:- Rs. 127856/- iv. Interest from income tax refund:- Rs. 4487/- Total net income under the head income from other sources:- Rs. 10454659/- (in support of above, copy of the relevant pages of the return filed is enclosed as annex. 52 to 68 herewith) In this

Kishor K Kasta, Porbandar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Porbandar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 892/RJT/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 892/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Kishor K. Kasta Vs. Ito Ward-2(4), R. K. Jetty, Plot Vistar, Okha Porbandar - 361350 Porbandar (Guj) – 361350 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awbpk9704A (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

assessment year (A.Y.) 2015-16, on 17-10-2015, declaring income of Rs. 3,16,120/-, under the head business and income from other sources. It was observed by the assessing officer from the information available on record that the assessee has sold an immovable property for a consideration

Suresh Jat, Badnawar vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Dhar

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 693/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Jat, Ito, बनाम/ C/O S.V. Agrawal & Associate Dhar. Vs. Dadi Dham, 24-25, Joy Building Colony, Old Aplasia, Indore. (Pan: Anopj2666E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 194HSection 250Section 253Section 69A

from the other sources at Rs. 4,19,451/-. There was yet one more addition on the account of commission/brokerage under the head income from other source at Rs. 5,078/-. The aforesaid assessment order bears number:-ITBA/AST/S/147/2023- 24/1061442259(1) & that the same is dated 24.02.2024 which is herein after ... total income of the appellant on account of interest received from Shri Om Prakash Gupta by treating it as income from other sources without properly appreciating the facts of the case 6.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred

Mukesh Kumar, Yamunaanagar vs. ITO Ward 3 Yamunanagar, Yamunanagar

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1315/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1315/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Mukesh Kumar Ito Ward 3 बनाम/ H. No. 76W No. 2, Sk Road Aaykar Bhawan, Sector 17, Vs. Radaur, Yamuna Nagar -135 133 Jagadhari, Yamuna Nagar - 135003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brups-0808-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015- 16 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 02-09-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 28-03-2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. That The Ao Has Wrongly Invoked The Provisions Of Section 147/148 Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Ao Has Wrongly Taxed Enhanced Compensation Amounting To Rs. 901726 On Acquisition Of Agricultural Land Which Is Exempt Under Section 10(37) Of Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57Section 80C

which was denied for want of supporting document. The assessee reflected exempt agricultural income of Rs.9,01,726/- which was considered as income from other sources. Finally, the income was determined at Rs.16,74,040/-. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for want of any compliance from the assessee

The Kara Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Godhra

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

ITA 2414/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamblethe Kara Dudh Utpadak Sahkari The Income Tax Vs. Mandli Ltd. Officer, Kara Kanjipani Ward-1, Godhra Jambughoda Godhra – 389 001 Panchmahal – 389 390

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: -None-

Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 270A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of 746,348/- on account of Income from other Sources as offered in the return of Income without considering the appellant's inability to respond to the hearing notices due to genuine constraints

Dharmaveer Sambhaji Nagari Sahakari Pat Maryadit, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune

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

ITA 1217/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Dharmaveer Sambhaji Nagari Pcit-3, Pune Sahakari Pat Maryadit Vs. A/P Manchar, Tal-Ambegaon, Dist. Pune – 410503 Pan: Aaaad5228N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandip Argade Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-01-2026

For Appellant: Shri Sandip ArgadeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

wherein it has been held that the interest income which has been earned by investing surplus funds would come in the category of ‘Income from other sources’ taxable u/s 56 and would not qualify for deduction as business income u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. He observed that ... income earned by the assessee is related to its core business or residual income which is required to be taxed under the head ‘Income from other sources’. Thus, the order passed by the Assessing Officer has become erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He, therefore, issued

Noida Towers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

ITA 4199/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Jagpal, Gurugram vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2092/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Sidhu, CIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 145ASection 148Section 263Section 263(1)Section 28Section 34Section 56(2)(viii)

Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation for acquisition of land, is exempt u/s 10(37) or will be exigible to tax under the "income from other sources" in view of amendment w.e.f 01.04.2010 in the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) of the Act. 7. The issue ... Supreme Court had no occasion to deal with the issue of taxability of interest received under section 28 of LAA as ‘income from other sources’ especially after the amended provision of section 56(2)(viii) and 145B(1) of the I T Act with effect from

Kamal Jain, Roorkee vs. DCIT, Circle Haridwar, Haridwar

In the result, appeals of the revenue and the crossobjections of the assesses stand dismissed

ITA 909/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraand**

Roorkee and has earned consultancy expenses and the net income from consultancy (after deducting 25% expenditure) was offered to tax under the head income from other sources. The claim of the assessee was disallowed by AO as the claim of expenses was on adhoc basis. We find that identical issue ... University utilized by them. The net amount received by the assessee were declared in the return of income under the head "income from other sources after claiming expenses of 25% therefrom on ad hoc basis. AO assessed the consultancy charges as income from salary and did not allow expenses claimed

Prem Lata Verma, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 441/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 10(1)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Officer completed the assessment and added Rs.4,00,00,000/- as cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and Rs.15,00,000/- as income from other sources, assessing total income at Rs.4,29,42,320/-. 4. Assessee filed first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals). Assessee remained un-responded before

Income Tax Officer, Ferozepur vs. Ms.Jatin Agro, Fort Road

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 104/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

against current year income. 3. During the previous year under consideration, it had earned Rs.6, 18, 29,857/-as rental income le income from a source other than from a specified business as per section 35AD of the Act. But, the treatment of rental income received from godown given ... Rs.2,30,15,640/- (including Rs.2.26 crores assessed under the head “income from house property” and an amount of Rs.3,83,429/- as “income from other sources” being the portion of interest on bank deposits). I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/202 1 Assessment Years