← 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

Yogeshkumar Babubhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 352/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Yogeshkumar Babubhai Patel, I.T.O., 48, Rajput Faliya, Kumbhariya Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Gam, Punagam, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Anmpp 0363 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 68

facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,500/- for cash deposited in bank without appreciating the evidences of Gift received, income from other sources and other receipt duly shown in Return of Income. The addition of Rs. 10,00,500/- should therefore be deleted. 3. The learned Commissioner ... respectively. On the basis of such discrepancy, the Assessing Officer took his view that the agriculture is nothing but income from undisclosed sources. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice as to why amount of Rs. 8,33,202/- should not be added to the income under Section

Regal Industries, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1737/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri V.H. JariwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

disclose his intention to bifurcate and re compute income under two different heads of income viz profits and Gains of Business and Income from other sources when total income was already assessed u/s 143 (3) (after discussion) as business income, and hence the rectification order passed by A.O. for reason ... order dated 31/03/2016, passed under section 154 of the Act treated the interest income of Rs.10,18,211, received by the assessee as income from other sources and Regal Industries ITA no.1737/Mum./2023 set off the brought forward losses against the business income after reducing the aforesaid interest income. Accordingly

Shruti Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal

ITA 1795/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmams. Shruti Mittal Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Flat No. 1001 Central Circle Shabri Basera Building Karnal Opp. Diamond Garden Chembur, Mumbai Pan : Ajtpa6926B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153A

case of Shri Subhash Chander Mittal, that the amount of Rs. 1,47,00,000/- declared by him has been shown as income from other sources and ‘undisclosed speculative profit from Rice.’ Therefore, the argument of the appellant that this undisclosed income offered includes investment in jewellery of the appellant

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

under the head house property is duly reflected in such Form 16, disallowed by the AO, and reassessed the appellant under the head income from other sources on the so called interest earned from the society. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Cuttack has reassessed the income ... petitioner as per the assessment order dated 19.12.2018. A. Assessee has failed to declare the head “income from other sources”, on its opening balance of with society as on 31.3.2021, and interest if any earned. B. Assessee has failed to explain the source of fresh deposit

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

under the head house property is duly reflected in such Form 16, disallowed by the AO, and reassessed the appellant under the head income from other sources on the so called interest earned from the society. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Cuttack has reassessed the income ... petitioner as per the assessment order dated 19.12.2018. A. Assessee has failed to declare the head “income from other sources”, on its opening balance of with society as on 31.3.2021, and interest if any earned. B. Assessee has failed to explain the source of fresh deposit

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 121/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

under the head house property is duly reflected in such Form 16, disallowed by the AO, and reassessed the appellant under the head income from other sources on the so called interest earned from the society. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Cuttack has reassessed the income ... petitioner as per the assessment order dated 19.12.2018. A. Assessee has failed to declare the head “income from other sources”, on its opening balance of with society as on 31.3.2021, and interest if any earned. B. Assessee has failed to explain the source of fresh deposit

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 120/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

under the head house property is duly reflected in such Form 16, disallowed by the AO, and reassessed the appellant under the head income from other sources on the so called interest earned from the society. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Cuttack has reassessed the income ... petitioner as per the assessment order dated 19.12.2018. A. Assessee has failed to declare the head “income from other sources”, on its opening balance of with society as on 31.3.2021, and interest if any earned. B. Assessee has failed to explain the source of fresh deposit

Bhupinder Singh Julka, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1807/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 80T

That the learned AO/DRP has included amount of Rs. 24,86,030/- twice both in capital gain calculation and also as income from other sources. Inspite of Hon’ble DRP direction to record reason on the alleged treatment of impugned amount, no justification has been given in assessment order dated ... return of income a sum of INR 4,56,070/-under head income from House Property and INR 81,317/- under head income from other sources. In his computation of income, the assessee had declared long term capital loss of INR 81,42,760/-. Therefore, the AO show caused

Smt Beena Rajen Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1681/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesmt.Beena Rajesh Shah, Vs. Ito – 19(1)(2), C/2, 454, 6Th Floor, Matru Mandir, Matru Ashish, Tardeo Road, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai-400007. Mumbai-400006, Maharastra. Pan/Gir No. : Aagps8608G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Shreya Gosavi.Ar Respondent By : Ms. R.M. Brindha.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms.Shreya Gosavi.ARFor Respondent: Ms. R.M. Brindha.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24

grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case that, the assessee is an individual and derives income from house property and income from other sources. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2016-17 on 30.03.2017 disclosing a total income

Aditya Builders and Developers, Jodhpur vs. CPC, Bengaluru / ACIT, Circle-3, Jodhpur

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

ITA 11/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Aug 2023AY 2019-20
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 3

appellant in the ITR and in the case under consideration, the appellant has filled up such income of Rs. 13,73,140/- as income from other sources in Schedule BP Sl. No. A. 3c. It is once again reiterated that this appeal is against the intimation

Shri Manjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Dasuya

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

ITA 132/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

appellant has shown this profit u/s 44AD of the Act, being higher than 8%. Apart from this, the appellant has shown income from other sources of Rs. 4,29,173/-Copy of cash book filed show receipts from cash sales, or from capita account. There is substantial amount of cash

Sh. Farukh Jehan Zeb, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Anant Nag

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 444/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Touseef Ahmad Khanday &For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee has embezzled this money also indicates that this money is not from his business proceeds. Hence, I treat this money as income from other sources. The entry of the deposits in the bank accounts remained thus un-explained and is required to e brought

Vikesh Chaturbhuj Agrawal, Nagpur vs. ITO-Ward-4(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 407/NAG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi(Through Virtual Hearing) Rakesh Ashok Selarka, Vs Ito, Ward-4(4), Krishnakunj, 179, Queta Nagpur. Colony, Nagpur. Pan: Abnps 8472 N Appellant Respondent Ashok Amichand Selarka, Vs Ito, Ward-4(4), Krishnakunj, 179, Queta Nagpur. Colony, Nagpur. Pan: Ablps 5338 R Appellant Respondent Vikesh Chaturbhuj Agrawal, Vs Ito, Ward-4(1), 23, Shradha, Ring Road, Nagpur. Nagpur. Pan: Abjpa 9338 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Thakar, Adv. (Ita No.381 & 382/Nag/2013) Shri Nilesh Sindhwani, Ca (Ita No.407/Nag/2013) Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Addl.Cit-Dr (Ita No.381 & 382/Nag/2013) Smt. Rashmi Mathur, Dr (Ita No.407/Nag/2013) Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/08/2023

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Thakar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148

appeal bearing ITA No.381/NAG/2013 are stated herein. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from other sources. The return of income for the A.Y. 2007-08 was filed on 31/03/2008 declaring a total income

Shri Ashok A. Selarka, Nagpur vs. ITO-Ward-4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 382/NAG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi(Through Virtual Hearing) Rakesh Ashok Selarka, Vs Ito, Ward-4(4), Krishnakunj, 179, Queta Nagpur. Colony, Nagpur. Pan: Abnps 8472 N Appellant Respondent Ashok Amichand Selarka, Vs Ito, Ward-4(4), Krishnakunj, 179, Queta Nagpur. Colony, Nagpur. Pan: Ablps 5338 R Appellant Respondent Vikesh Chaturbhuj Agrawal, Vs Ito, Ward-4(1), 23, Shradha, Ring Road, Nagpur. Nagpur. Pan: Abjpa 9338 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Thakar, Adv. (Ita No.381 & 382/Nag/2013) Shri Nilesh Sindhwani, Ca (Ita No.407/Nag/2013) Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Addl.Cit-Dr (Ita No.381 & 382/Nag/2013) Smt. Rashmi Mathur, Dr (Ita No.407/Nag/2013) Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/08/2023

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Thakar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148

appeal bearing ITA No.381/NAG/2013 are stated herein. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from other sources. The return of income for the A.Y. 2007-08 was filed on 31/03/2008 declaring a total income

Rakesh Ashok Selarka, Nagpur vs. ITO-Ward-4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 381/NAG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi(Through Virtual Hearing) Rakesh Ashok Selarka, Vs Ito, Ward-4(4), Krishnakunj, 179, Queta Nagpur. Colony, Nagpur. Pan: Abnps 8472 N Appellant Respondent Ashok Amichand Selarka, Vs Ito, Ward-4(4), Krishnakunj, 179, Queta Nagpur. Colony, Nagpur. Pan: Ablps 5338 R Appellant Respondent Vikesh Chaturbhuj Agrawal, Vs Ito, Ward-4(1), 23, Shradha, Ring Road, Nagpur. Nagpur. Pan: Abjpa 9338 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Thakar, Adv. (Ita No.381 & 382/Nag/2013) Shri Nilesh Sindhwani, Ca (Ita No.407/Nag/2013) Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Addl.Cit-Dr (Ita No.381 & 382/Nag/2013) Smt. Rashmi Mathur, Dr (Ita No.407/Nag/2013) Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/08/2023

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Thakar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148

appeal bearing ITA No.381/NAG/2013 are stated herein. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from other sources. The return of income for the A.Y. 2007-08 was filed on 31/03/2008 declaring a total income

Asst CIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Bsr and Co., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 362/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb7357B (Appellant) (Respondent) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Llp Acit – 16(2) Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaafb9852F (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Co. Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb4734C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 195Section 40

Norway entity at Sr. No. 10 it is submitted that the professional fees are paid for services utilised for the purpose of earning income from a source outside India and hence, are not taxable in India pursuant to the provisions of Section ... Counsel explained that the professional fees have been paid by the assessee, an India tax resident to KPMG Norway, a nonresident for earning income from a source outside India i.e. from an overseas client. Ld. Counsel of the assessee placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case

Asst CIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Bsr and Co. LLP, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 361/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb7357B (Appellant) (Respondent) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Llp Acit – 16(2) Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaafb9852F (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Co. Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb4734C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 195Section 40

Norway entity at Sr. No. 10 it is submitted that the professional fees are paid for services utilised for the purpose of earning income from a source outside India and hence, are not taxable in India pursuant to the provisions of Section ... Counsel explained that the professional fees have been paid by the assessee, an India tax resident to KPMG Norway, a nonresident for earning income from a source outside India i.e. from an overseas client. Ld. Counsel of the assessee placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case

Asst CIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Bsr and Company, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 360/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb7357B (Appellant) (Respondent) V. M/S. Bsr & Company Llp Acit – 16(2) Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaafb9852F (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – 16(2) V. M/S. Bsr & Co. Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Appolo Mills Compound Mumbai - 400020 N.M. Joshi Marg Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaifb4734C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 195Section 40

Norway entity at Sr. No. 10 it is submitted that the professional fees are paid for services utilised for the purpose of earning income from a source outside India and hence, are not taxable in India pursuant to the provisions of Section ... Counsel explained that the professional fees have been paid by the assessee, an India tax resident to KPMG Norway, a nonresident for earning income from a source outside India i.e. from an overseas client. Ld. Counsel of the assessee placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case

Shri Shailesh Mohanbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

ITA 315/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.315/Srt/2023 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shailesh Mohanbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, At & Po: Sarsana, Khajod, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat, Vs Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Room Pan No: Aqapp 7701 P No.613, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

action making addition of Rs.4,43,366/- u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act on account of the alleged income under the head “Income from other sources” being under gross misconception, misconstruction and misapplication of the provisions of the law, is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary, void

Ajay Bhargava HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A)For Respondent: Ms. MonishaChoudhary (Addl.CIT)

held that the remaining portion of the agriculture income declared by the appellant of Rs. 17,00,246/- is to be treated as income from other sources. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 17,00,246/- is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed.’’ 5 ITA NP. 224/JP/2023 AJAY ... wherein agriculture income to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs was accepted and balance amount of Rs.17,00,246/- was treated as income from other sources by the AO with following narration. ‘’In view of the above findings, it would be justifiable and appropriate to treat out of total agriculture