“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

Amardeep Chaudhary, Panchkula, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Panchkula, Panchkula Haryana

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 750/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.750/Chd/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Amardeep Chaudhary Ito Ward 1 Panchkula बनाम/ Vs. House No. 153, Sector-2, Ito Ward-1, Panchkula, Panchkula, Haryana - 134112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakpc-3432-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ : Sh. B.M. Monga & Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocates) Appellant By ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06- 01-2026

For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 23Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

made on account of amount received by the assessee as enhanced compensation alongwith the interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, as income from other sources, whereas the enhanced compensation AMD interest received u/s 23(I-A), 23(2) AMD 28 is exempt as held ... made on account of amount received by the Assessee as enhanced compensation along with interest of the Land Acquisition Act under as ‘income from other sources’. 8. During proceedings before us, ld. Counsel for the Assessee made submissions that the Assessee is entitled for enhanced compensation alongwith interest

Kusum Chauhan, Jagadhari Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3 Yamunanagar, Jagadhari

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1310/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Dalal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 56(2)

claim was construed as capital receipt but the interest on delayed payment was not a capital receipt. The same would be taxable as ‘income from other sources’ u/s 56(2) though the assessee was following receipt basis of accounting. Finally, considering potential loss of revenue, Ld. AO added the interest ... chargeable to tax even by Section 56 (2) (viii) of the Act, 1961 only that part of the interest component which deals with income from other sources. In view of this discussion, it emerges that the interest granted on compensation or enhanced compensation awarded by MACT or this Court from

Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Sangli. vs. Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta

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

ITA 2375/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2375/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Vs. Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent C. O. No.49/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2375/Pun/2025) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Ganesh Nagari Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Assessee By : Shri Sarang Gudhate Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

directed to calculate the deduction related to the interest income earned from nationalised banks and the same may be assessed as income from other sources. Therefore, the AO is directed to allow deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income earned from cooperative banks

The Govt. Tele Communication Employees Co-Op. Society Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2527/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2527/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. The Government Tele The Income Tax Officer, Communication Employees Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 11(1), Co-Operative Society Limited, Chennai. 37-A, Sembudoss Street, Broadway, Chennai - 600 001. Pan: Aabat 3072B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri M.Karunakaran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri M.Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 250Section 80L

appellant submits that even if interest on fixed deposits and savings bank interest are not entitled to exemption u/s 80L the correct income under these sources should be computed after allowing interest paid against interest receipts as there is direct :- 4 -: nexus between the interest payment and interest receipts ... interest income. The case of the Assessee is that the Assessing Officer has treated the interest income earned by the Assessee has income from other sources and estimated the expenditure only. In the Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer has not properly considered the expenditure incurred by the Assessee to earn

Laxmi Venkatesh Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Udupi

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

ITA 2046/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: None

Section 56Section 57Section 80P(2)(a)

interest income derived from investments over and above the statutory limit, shall be considered as Income from Other Sources under Sec. 56 of the Act against which an Assessee is eligible to claim proportionate cost of funds as deduction under Sec. 57(iii) of the Act. It is submitted ... interest income earned from the statutory deposits made by the assessee with the co-operative banks under the head income from other sources. We have also perused the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and in pages 33 and 36, the Ld.CIT(A) had observed as follows: “The appellant has also

Ketan Harilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commssioner of Income Tax - 32(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing

ITA 6689/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

impugned assessment year the assessee filed his ROI. He 2 Ketan Harilal Mehta had declared the income under the head capital gain and income from other sources. He acted as an investor and declared Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG

Smt. Urmila Dhelia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4259/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming the addition of Rs.62,05,000/-made by the AO to the income of the Appellant under the head “Income from other sources” in respect of monetary consideration i.e. Corpus Money entitled to receive from the Developers in pursuance to re-development agreement subject to certain conditions ... passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147, wherein he treated the hardship compensation of Rs. 62,05,000/- as Income from other source observing that the activities carried out by the Society were in the nature of commercial activities and the monetary consideration arising out of it and directly

Nayana Digant Kapadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 20(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers

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

ITA 3173/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Nayana Digant Kapadia Income Tax Officer, 152, Ramanuj, 20(2)(1), Mumbai Road No.9, Wadala, Vs. Mumbai – 400 031 (Pan : Aabpk8446R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Satish Mody, Ca Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl /Jcit (A)-3 Delhi Vide Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1074687488(1), Dated 19.03.2025 Passed Against The Intimation Issued By Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru, U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.11.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32 Erred In Confirming The Order Made U/S 143(1) Dt 30/11/2019 Wherein The Interest Income Of Rs 26,49,581/- From Dlk Commercial Pvt Ltd Was Added As Income Of The Appellant On Accrual Basis Inspite Of The Fact That The Appellant U/S 145 Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145

which was revised on 25.03.2019, reporting total income at Rs.4,35,340/-. Income reported by the assessee included income from salary and income from other sources. Under the head ‘income from other sources’, interest of Rs.93,391/- was reported from bank and Rs.21,950/- from fixed deposits with bank. Assessee ... perusal of material on record, we are satisfied that the Appellant has been consistently offering to tax interest income under the head 'Income from Other Sources' on receipt basis in line with the provisions of Section 145 of the Act. Interest income of INR.30,06,671/- reflected in Form 26AS

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (1), Varanasi vs. Prominent Datamatics Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

Income Tax Act 1961 lays down that income chargeable under the head "Profit and gains of business or profession" or Income from other sources shall, subject to the accounting standards notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system

Ally Enterprises, Jamshedpur vs. Deputy 0R Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 364/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

this Appeal." 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from contractual receipts and income from other sources. It was also revealed that the assessee had deposited substantial cash amount during demonetization period. Return of income was filed on 28/10/2017 declaring

Sri Bramaramba Pattina Souharda Shakari Sangha Niyamitha, Maski vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

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

ITA 189/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 71Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

well as the Learned CIT(A) erred: (i) In holding that interest income of Rs.5,95,54,167/- is assessable under the head, `Income from other sources' and consequently denying the benefit of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Page 2 of 11 (ii) In not appreciating that the interest ... submissions and Grounds taken, the learned AO failed to appreciate that the income assessed by him under the head, 'Income from other sources, denying the deduction u/s 80P is liable to be set-off against the resultant business loss applying section 71 of the Act. 5. The Appellant craves leave

Vivek Trivedi, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 5533/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandran,ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249Section 69A

Assessing Officer by treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s, 69C is required to be assessed as interest income under the head income from other sources. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs.9,864 as made by the Assessing Officer by treating

Lakhi Ram, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Gurgaon, Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2028/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 2028/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Lakhi Ram, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 70, Village- Dhanwapur, Ward-1(4), Daultabad, Gurugram, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Awzpr6814L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061566876(1) Dated 27.02.2024, In Proceedings U/S 144 R.W.S. 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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. 5. We 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

Madhur Coal Mining Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1784/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50DSection 56(2)(viia)

completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2017 by making additions of ₹13,23,01,000/- on account of income from other sources u/s 56(2)(viia) of the Act and ₹3,38,75,800/- on account of capital gains u/s 50D of the Act and assessed ... prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely :— (viia) where a firm or a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous

The India Cements Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1) Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 2174/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Section 10(39)Section 115JSection 14A

total income. It provides that subject to the provisions of this Act, total income of a person who is resident would include all income from whatever sources derived which is received or deemed to be received in India or income which accrue or arise or deemed to accrue or arise ... classified in five distinct heads of income i.e., Salaries, Income from House Property, Profits and Gains of business or profession, capital gains or income from other sources. In other words, once an item has been found to be covered within the meaning of 'income', the same shall have necessarily

Ishares Core Msci Total International Stock Etf (As A Successor to Ishare Core Taotal International Stock Mauritius Company ), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6774/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor To Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company) C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aafci3337N V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Tax) - 2(2)(2) Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028 Pan : Aabti7439L ............... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

Provisions of section 70 of the income tax act provides for the set off of losses from one source against income from another source under the same head of income. According to section 70 (1) where assessee suffers loss in respect of any source under any head of income other ... income. Hon’ble Special Bench also observed that, what is taxed by the Act is not different source of income, independently and that income from different source is clubbed under respective heads that are finally aggregated into the total income. The relevant extract of the observations

Ishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor to Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Tp) 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6051/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Pranav GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

Rameshbhai Makanbhai Bhakta, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Bardoli

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

ITA 413/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Arjav Vidani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

assessee regarding the abnormal increase in agriculture income during the year. Therefore, he treated the gross agriculture income of Rs.62,09,918/- as income from other sources and accordingly made the addition. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) on 23.12.2019 at total income of Rs.63,85,740/- 3. Aggrieved with ... fact by confirming the addition of Rs.23,01,708/- out of total addition of Rs.62,09,918/- considered by learned assessing officer as income from other sources despite of the fact that income was agriculture income. 2. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete and ground(s) either

Varshaben Chauhan, at Dudhai, Jodiya, Jamnagar vs. ITO Ward 2(10) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

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

ITA 689/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 689/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Varshaben Chauhan Ito, Wd – 2(10) At Dudhal, Jodiya, Jamnagar (Guj)-363655 Vs. Jamnagar (Guj) - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ccipc6181L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Suresh Tejwani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 : 31/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Tejwani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

Rs.18,68,419/-, made by the assessing officer as unexplained money u/s 69A and Rs. 24,858/-, as unexplained income under the head income from other sources. 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before me is an Individual and did not file the return

Dhruti Jaysukhbhai Ranpariya, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-2 (6) Jamnagar, Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 536/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dhruti Jaysukhbhai Ranpariya Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(6), बनाम/ Dhareshwar Appartment 56, Jamnagar, Aaykar Bhawan, 4Th Digvijay Plot, Floor, Manek Center, Nehru Road, Vs. Jamnagar (Guj) -361005 Jamnagar (Guj) -361006 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Aqkpr6633C : (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

income in ITR-4 for assessment year (AY) 2018-19 on 24.07.2018, declaring income from business and profession of Rs.4,52,134/- and income from other sources of Rs.39,991/- and assessee has opted for presumptive taxation scheme u/s 44ADA of the Act thereby declaring gross receipts at Rs.4