“income from other sources”

The Acropolis Co.Op.Hsg.Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Acropolis Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. Dy. Cit, Cpc B-31, Acropolis Little Gibs Road, Malbar Bengaluru, Karnataka Vs. Hill, Mumbai-400 006

wholly and exclusively to earn such income, the ld. CIT(A) added the entire interest income of Rs.9,95,308/- to tax under income from ‘other sources’. Resultantly, the profits earned out of it are directly attributable to the business of providing credit facility to the assessee’s members which ... Court which held that the interest income earned was not the “income from business” as a co-operative society, but it pertains to “income from other source”, which is taxable u/s. 56 of the Act and that section 80P(2)(a) of the Act provided for deduction on income earned

Beetle Ventures Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Beetle Ventures Private Limited V. Acit – 16(2) Unit No. 155 Room No. 440, 4Th Floor Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road S.J. Marg, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aafcb9355H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Jayesh Dadiya Department Represented By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha

treated as income Section 56(2) provides for the specific category of incomes that shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources". It is proposed to insert a new clause in section 56(2). The new clause will apply where a company, not being ... consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares shall be chargeable to income tax under the head "Income from other sources. However, this provision shall not apply where the consideration for issue of shares is received by a venture capital undertaking from a venture

Bhagwan Tikamdas Khinani, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

income on 30/03/2021, declaring the total income of appeal Rs. 16,08,080. During the year, the assessee earned income from salary and income from other sources. During the year, the assessee also earned salary, dividend, and interest income in the USA and on which tax was paid ... 10/01/2021. However, the assessee filed his return of income on 30/03/2021 declaring Bhagwandas Tikamdas Khinani ITA No.2177/Mum./2022 income earned from salary and income from other sources. It is the claim of the assessee that it has also earned salary, dividend, and interest income amounting

Kundanmal Keshrimalji Dhakad, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD-18(2) (2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Rs.90,95,589/- as made by the assessing officer by treating the sale proceeds of shares as bogus and assessing the same as Income from other Sources and thereby denying the exemption u/s. 10(38) in relation to the long term capital gains on sale of the shares ... allowed the deduction of Rs.1,15,000/- as cost of the shares sold and has taxed the amount of sale consideration as the Income from other Sources. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record, are: The 3. assessee is an individual and is a wholseller

Progressive Currency Bazaar P Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

declaring a loss of Rs. nil. During the year, the assessee has mainly derived income from the business, speculation income, capital gain, and income from other sources. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, reassessment 3 Progressive Currency Bazaar

ACIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbaiq vs. M/S Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismis

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit-14(1)(1), M/S. Kotak Mahindra Life Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Insurance Company Ltd Bhavan, M.K.Road Vs. 2Nd Floor, 12 Bkc, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 051 Pan No. Aaaco3983B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, Cit Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2022

income like, Interest on Securities, income and excludes other heads of income like, Interest on Securities, income from House property, Capital gains or Income from other sources. from House property, Capital gains or Income from other sources. from House property, Capital gains or Income from other sources. Being non-obstante

M/S. Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd (As A Sucessor to Novamed Investments Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commisssioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1) (1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Lupin Investments Vs. Acit, Circle – 14(1)(1) Pvt Ltd (Successor To Mumbai. Novamed Investments Pvt Ltd.,) 159, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400098. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1070G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Hemen Chandaria.Ar Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sinha.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.10.2022 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 Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

after claiming deduction u/s 80GGA of the Act donation of Rs.56,50,000/- which was restricted to gross total income comprising of income from other sources. The donation was made by the assessee to Desh Bandhu and Manju Gupta Foundation Trust having approval u/s 35AC of the Act. Whereas ... profession and the assessee’s claim for deduction has to be allowed u/s 80GGA of the Act as the income was disclosed under income from other sources,But the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing at Para 5.1 to 5.2 as under: 5.1 On verification

Mahim Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd., Thane vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Thane

In the result we allow the ground no

wherein it was held that interest on surplus funds deposited with banks bears the character of income from other sources and not business income, whereas the appellant has claimed deduction under sec. 80P (2)(d) which does not confine the deduction to business income only. 5. The learned Pr. Commissioner ... latest decision of the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench vide ITA No. 100069/2016 dated 05.01.2017 wherein it is held that income from other sources and not income from business, hence such interest income would be taxable u/s. 56 of the Act. IAP further observed that from the ITR/P&L account

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

loss account are Under various heads other than financial services b. Aditya Birla Nuvo limited shows interest income from lending Under the head income from other sources c. the primary source of income is shown as sale of products/sale of services d. the Aditya Birla Nuvo limited has shown ... dealt with in Para 53 – 54 below]. 10. Interest income from lending to its Associates and Subsidiaries, has been shown under the head “Income from Other Sources.” (Para 13.1(iii), Pg. 42 of AO Order). [Factually incorrect please refer Para 49 – 50 below]. In Profit and Loss A/c in Return

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

loss account are Under various heads other than financial services b. Aditya Birla Nuvo limited shows interest income from lending Under the head income from other sources c. the primary source of income is shown as sale of products/sale of services d. the Aditya Birla Nuvo limited has shown ... dealt with in Para 53 – 54 below]. 10. Interest income from lending to its Associates and Subsidiaries, has been shown under the head “Income from Other Sources.” (Para 13.1(iii), Pg. 42 of AO Order). [Factually incorrect please refer Para 49 – 50 below]. In Profit and Loss A/c in Return

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

record. The Assessing Officer held that gross interest income of ₹ 1, 08, 52, 762/-was liable to be taxed under the head „income from other sources‟ as same was not derived from the business of industrial undertaking. The Ld. CIT(A) following his predecessor upheld the finding of the learned ... earned by the assessee from deposits like MIDC and MEPD etc. from business income and treated the same as income from other sources and denied deduction u/s. 80IB. The action of the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee farily conceded that

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

record. The Assessing Officer held that gross interest income of ₹ 1, 08, 52, 762/-was liable to be taxed under the head „income from other sources‟ as same was not derived from the business of industrial undertaking. The Ld. CIT(A) following his predecessor upheld the finding of the learned ... earned by the assessee from deposits like MIDC and MEPD etc. from business income and treated the same as income from other sources and denied deduction u/s. 80IB. The action of the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee farily conceded that

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

record. The Assessing Officer held that gross interest income of ₹ 1, 08, 52, 762/-was liable to be taxed under the head „income from other sources‟ as same was not derived from the business of industrial undertaking. The Ld. CIT(A) following his predecessor upheld the finding of the learned ... earned by the assessee from deposits like MIDC and MEPD etc. from business income and treated the same as income from other sources and denied deduction u/s. 80IB. The action of the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee farily conceded that

Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

record. The Assessing Officer held that gross interest income of ₹ 1, 08, 52, 762/-was liable to be taxed under the head „income from other sources‟ as same was not derived from the business of industrial undertaking. The Ld. CIT(A) following his predecessor upheld the finding of the learned ... earned by the assessee from deposits like MIDC and MEPD etc. from business income and treated the same as income from other sources and denied deduction u/s. 80IB. The action of the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee farily conceded that

Roha Dyechem Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

record. The Assessing Officer held that gross interest income of ₹ 1, 08, 52, 762/-was liable to be taxed under the head „income from other sources‟ as same was not derived from the business of industrial undertaking. The Ld. CIT(A) following his predecessor upheld the finding of the learned ... earned by the assessee from deposits like MIDC and MEPD etc. from business income and treated the same as income from other sources and denied deduction u/s. 80IB. The action of the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee farily conceded that

Roha Dyechem Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

record. The Assessing Officer held that gross interest income of ₹ 1, 08, 52, 762/-was liable to be taxed under the head „income from other sources‟ as same was not derived from the business of industrial undertaking. The Ld. CIT(A) following his predecessor upheld the finding of the learned ... earned by the assessee from deposits like MIDC and MEPD etc. from business income and treated the same as income from other sources and denied deduction u/s. 80IB. The action of the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee farily conceded that

Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

record. The Assessing Officer held that gross interest income of ₹ 1, 08, 52, 762/-was liable to be taxed under the head „income from other sources‟ as same was not derived from the business of industrial undertaking. The Ld. CIT(A) following his predecessor upheld the finding of the learned ... earned by the assessee from deposits like MIDC and MEPD etc. from business income and treated the same as income from other sources and denied deduction u/s. 80IB. The action of the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee farily conceded that

ACIT Cen Ci-43 vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

record. The Assessing Officer held that gross interest income of ₹ 1, 08, 52, 762/-was liable to be taxed under the head „income from other sources‟ as same was not derived from the business of industrial undertaking. The Ld. CIT(A) following his predecessor upheld the finding of the learned ... earned by the assessee from deposits like MIDC and MEPD etc. from business income and treated the same as income from other sources and denied deduction u/s. 80IB. The action of the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee farily conceded that