← 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

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. General Electric Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

ITA 432/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

assessment year under consideration on 29 October 2001 declaring the total income of Rs.3,07,33,0901- as Royalty/Fee for technical services and income from other sources. During the year under consideration, the assessee made equipment! parts supplies on an off-shore basis to Indian customers in the Energy

Babita Devi Kanoria, Raniganj vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 54/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria,..............................Appellant W/O. Unesh Kr. Kajoria, Jagannath Garden, Nsb Road, P.O. Raniganj-713347, Burdwan, West Bengal [Pan: Anfpk0759G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(1), Asansol, Income Tax Department, Parmar Building, 54, G.T. Road, Upper Chelidanga, P.O. Asansol-713305, Paschim Burdwan (Wb) Appearances By: Shri Aayush Gupta, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 15, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2022 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol Dated 18.11.2019 Passed For A.Y. 2010-11. 1 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria, Raniganj 2. The Assessee Has Taken Three Grounds Of Appeal, But Her Grievances Revolve Around A Single Issue, Namely Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.3,09,766/-, Which Was Imposed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C).

Section 133(6)Section 14Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Babita Devi Kajoria, Raniganj After considering the material gathered in course of assessment proceedings, it is found that assessee has shown income from other source of Rs.1,78,550/-. However, from the reply received from NMCE, Ahmedabad in response to this office letter u/s 133(6) of I.T. Act dated ... NMCE platform which is adjusted with the business income thus reduces the tax liability. The assessee filed ITR 2 claiming only income from other sources. No other income was shown by the assessee. After perusal of records and return on AST, it can be concluded that beneficiary persons have introduced

Alpana Sunil Shah, Mumbai vs. The CIT NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2305/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2305/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Alpana Sunil Shah बिधम/ Commissioner Of Income 23L/12Th Floor, Navjivan Tax (Appeals) Vs. Commercial Co-Op Society National Faceless Appeal Ltd, Dr. D.B. Marg, Centre (Nfac), Delhi. Mumbai Central, Mumbai- 400008. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps9752R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.09.2021 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition On Account Of Sale Of Shares As Unexplained Money U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Of Rs.1,41,761/- & Commission On It To The Tune Of Rs.2,835/-. The Assessee /Alpana Sunil Shah Is Carrying On The Business Of Trading & Investments In Shares, Bonds, Debentures, Securities & Financial Instruments. The Assessee Had E-Filed Its Return Of Income For The Previous Year Ended On March 31, 2011 Relevant To Ay. 2011-12 On March 15, 2012, Declaring

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar
Section 148Section 68

reopened the assessment. In the assessment order, the AO notes that the assessee’s total income for the year under consideration consists of income from other sources and income from capital gain and that the assessee has also declared Long Term Capital Loss on sale of shares

Kolla Gowri, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chittoor

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

ITA 1039/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Kolla Gowri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, R/O.Chennai. Chittoor. Pan : Aoepg6939E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C.A. Sumitra Nandan, Revenue By: Ms. Swapna. Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2022 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri C.A. Sumitra NandanFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna. Sr.A.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 50DSection 53A

Hence, the AO considered it as short term capital gains. 2.5. Further, the AO treated the agricultural income offered by the appellant as income from other source as the appellant has not admitted of having any asset of agricultural land in the balance sheet but admitted an income ... Since, the appellant has not furnished any bills/vouchers/ receipts as a proof for agricultural income, the AO treated the agricultural income admitted as income from other sources and added to the income returned. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant preferred an appeal before

Balaji Janakiraman, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-2, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2931/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2931/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Balaji Janakiraman, V. The Asst. Commissioner- Plot No.3, Door No.5, Of Income Tax (Osd), Thilagar Street, Corporate Range-2, Chennai. Kamakoti Nagar, Annex, Kamakshi Nagar Main Road, Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. [Pan: Aeppj 7090 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.R.S.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 131

Hence loan amounts obtained from the following persons is treated as unexplained and added back to total income the assessee under the head Income from other sources. S.No. Name of the person Amount Loan amount held as unproved 1 Mrs.NS Lakshmi Rs.20,00,000 Rs.14,00,000 2 Mrs.S.Pongodi Rs.25 ... bank statements of loan creditors to prove that loans have taken trough proper banking channel and further, the creditors have enough source of income to explain source for the loans. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedents, rejected arguments

Academy of Higher Education, Trichy vs. DCIT Circle 1(2), Trichy

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1973/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250(6)

XVII of the Act, would not change the character of the receipt in the hands of the appellant. Treatment of Interest earned as income from other sources 3.1 The learned CIT(A) and the AO have erred in treating the interest earned including proportionate compensation under the head income from ... interest income only. 2.7 In the above background, Ld. AO computed proportionate interest of Rs.3010 Lacs which was to be assessed as ‘income from other sources’ since the assessee earned major portion of income consisting of rental income and interest income. The rental income earned by the assessee was assessed

Siva Industries and Holdings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1393/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250(6)

XVII of the Act, would not change the character of the receipt in the hands of the appellant. Treatment of Interest earned as income from other sources 3.1 The learned CIT(A) and the AO have erred in treating the interest earned including proportionate compensation under the head income from ... interest income only. 2.7 In the above background, Ld. AO computed proportionate interest of Rs.3010 Lacs which was to be assessed as ‘income from other sources’ since the assessee earned major portion of income consisting of rental income and interest income. The rental income earned by the assessee was assessed

Siva Industries and Holdings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1392/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250(6)

XVII of the Act, would not change the character of the receipt in the hands of the appellant. Treatment of Interest earned as income from other sources 3.1 The learned CIT(A) and the AO have erred in treating the interest earned including proportionate compensation under the head income from ... interest income only. 2.7 In the above background, Ld. AO computed proportionate interest of Rs.3010 Lacs which was to be assessed as ‘income from other sources’ since the assessee earned major portion of income consisting of rental income and interest income. The rental income earned by the assessee was assessed

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Karburi Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 461/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 461, 462 & 463/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Dcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S Karburi Properties Room No. 1928, 19Th Ltd., Floor, Air India Bldg 324, Master Mind – Iv Nariman Point, Royal Palms, Aarey Milk Mumbai – 400 021. Colony, Goregoan East, Mumbai - 400065

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh. DR &
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

assessee’s case ITA No. 461, 462 & 463/Mum/2018 CO. 185, 186 & 187/Mum/2018 M/s. Karburi Properties Ltd, Mumbai. under the head income from other sources and partly allowed the asssessee appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the revenue has filed an appeal and the cross objection by the asssessee before

Panineeys Sanskrit Colleges Trust, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions)-3, Hyderabad

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

ITA 220/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Panineeya Sanskrit Vs. Ito(Exemptions)-3 College Trust Aaykar Bhawan Sy.No.103, Basheerbagh Vivekananda Nagar Hyderabad-500 004 Dilsukhnagar Hyderabad-500 060

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 120Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

submitted during the course of scrutiny proceedings. The AO while completing the assessment not considered income from business of R5.68,74,854/- and income from other Sources of Rs.20,95,897/ - 6. For the failure on part of the AO in not making the above, the assessment made ... assessee during the course of scrutiny proceedings has submitted revised computation of income showing income from business of Rs.68,74,854/- and income from other sources of Rs.20,95,897/-. The AO, while denying the claim of exemption u/s. 11 as discussed in paragraphs 5 to 14 of the order

Puli Chakrapani Reddy, Chittoor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 944/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Raj Pal Yadav & Shri Rama Kanta Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Chakrapani Puli Vs. Ito,Ward-1(1) No.2-1593/10, Near Sbi Tilak Road B.V.Reddy Colony Branch, K.T.Road Pileru, Chittoor District Tirupati-517 507 Andhra Pradesh-517 214

For Appellant: Shri Pawan KumarFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 44A

addition of Rs.39,50,000/- on account of business, Rs.30,49,670/- on account of increase in capital and Rs.2,21,965/- being income from other sources. 4. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee, wherein he deleted the addition made by the AO of Rs.39

Hemakumar Reddy Pouttiakula, Chittoor vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Tirupati

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1622/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Raj Pal Yadav & Shri Rama Kanta Panda

For Appellant: Ms. S.Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

No.1622/Hyd/2019 as the lead case. 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from other sources, liquor business and agricultural income. A search u/s. 132 of the I.T.Act was conducted in the case of Shri Pottiakula Munirathnam Reddy & Others ... profit from liquor business at 5% of the turnover and sustained the addition made by the AO treating the agricultural income as “income from other sources”. 4 Pouttiakula Hemakumar Reddy 9. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising

Shree Jalaram Builders & Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-32(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2592/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2017-2018
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194ISection 234BSection 40

Kumar Madan (supra) while considering the nature of payment received for alternative accommodation by the recipients held such payments at their hand as income from other sources instead of income from 6 Shree Jalaram Builders & Develpers house property. That being the case, the payment made by the assessee also being

Poonam Chambers Premises Co-Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2431/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepoonam Chambers Vs. Nfac, Newdelhi. Premises Co-Op Society Ltd., G/5, Poonam Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaap5497K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Shashank Mehta.Ar Respondent By : Mr. B. Bagchi.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac) / Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr. Shashank Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Mr. B. Bagchi.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

operative society referred u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the interest incomefrom co-operative banks are to be taxed under income from other sources. Finally the AO has made disallowance of the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act of Rs. 72.11.553/- and assessed the total income ... held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the interest earned by the assessee oil such deposits would come in the category of Income from other sources' taxable under section 56 of the IT Act. Applying the ratio to the facts of the instant case, it emerges that interest income

DCIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2314/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vallabh Gokhale, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, D.R
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

purpose of the business. The nature of payment is such that it cannot be considered either under section 56 of the Act, i.e., "Income from other sources" or under section 57 of the Act prescribing deductions only in respect of "income from other sources". Inter alia, the conclusion is that ... since the nature of payment did not fall within the category of "income from other sources" as also cannot be allowed as payment of interest under section 36(1)(iii), therefore, it's true nature is nothing but added value of cost of purchase, hence no TDS was required

Jai Malhar Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer 29(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1797/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

raised by the Appellant Co-operative Credit Society that the aforesaid Interest Income of Rs.63,92,976/- has been assessed under the head Income from Other Sources by Assessing Officer in incorrect, arbitrary & unlawful manner. 3.(a)(b)The learned CIT (Appeals) has also erred in not considering the orders ... Appeals)-39, Mumbai wherein similar Interest Income earned from Investments from Co-operative was held to be Income from Business and not as income from Other Sources as well as allowing admissible 100% deduction u/s 80- P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to the aforesaid

Milind Bhole, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2 (3), Thane

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6645/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Milind Bhole Ito Wd-2(3) C/101 Shree Sai Towers Ashar It Park,Wagle Sodwala Lane Nutan, Borivali Vs. Estate, Thane 400 604 (W) Mumbai-400 092 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aahpb9636J Assessee By : Shri.Sumit Mantri Revenue By : Shri. Ujjawal Chavan Srar Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri.Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Shri. Ujjawal Chavan SRAR
Section 250Section 40A(3)

source on the same. Neither the assessee has claimed credit of tax deduction at source, nor offered the bank interest as his income from other sources. On perusal of the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the learned assessing officer is correct in taxing the interest income

Sunny Park Apartment Owners Association, Kolkata vs. CIT(A), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 567/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

Section 250

regarded as income arising in the course of fulfilment of the objects of the assessee and thus ought not to be treated as income from other sources and charged to tax.” Assessment Year 2015-16: “For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred ... regarded as income arising in the course of fulfilment of the objects of the assessee and thus ought not to be treated as income from other sources and charged to tax.” Page 2 of 5 I.T.A. Nos.: 566 & 567/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sunny Park Apartment Owners Association

Sunny Park Apartment Owners Association, Kolkata vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 566/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

Section 250

regarded as income arising in the course of fulfilment of the objects of the assessee and thus ought not to be treated as income from other sources and charged to tax.” Assessment Year 2015-16: “For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred ... regarded as income arising in the course of fulfilment of the objects of the assessee and thus ought not to be treated as income from other sources and charged to tax.” Page 2 of 5 I.T.A. Nos.: 566 & 567/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sunny Park Apartment Owners Association

M/S. Sneha Kinetic Power Projects Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1054/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sri.Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 142(2)Section 234B

construction etc. and the net amount was capitalized. The A.O. show caused the assessee why the interest should not be treated as `income from other sources’. It was contended that the assessee had taken certain loans from IDBI Bank for its business and one of the conditions for the issue ... projects of the assessee. The A.O. relied on the following judicial pronouncements and held that the interest income is to be assessed as income from other sources. (i) Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (ii) CIT v. Coromandal Cements