← 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

M/S. Bharathi Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 793/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Prayadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

that interest income of Rs.26,34,597 received by the assessee on investments made with co-operative bank is to be assessed as “income from other sources”, and therefore, would be out of the purview of provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T.Act. The A.O. also held ... that section 80P(2)(d) of the I.T.Act would not be applicable for interest income of Rs.26,34,597 assessed under the head “income from other sources”, since the receipts are from a co-operative bank and not from a co-operative society. In this context, the A.O. relied

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 221/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and brought the same to tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”. 6. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The CIT(A) held that section 44AD is a special provision ... income is from any particular source. It is for the assessee to prove that, even if the sundry creditors represent income, it is income from a source which has already been taxed. (iv) NavinShantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-32 (2) (4), [Mumbai 2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 220/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and brought the same to tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”. 6. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The CIT(A) held that section 44AD is a special provision ... income is from any particular source. It is for the assessee to prove that, even if the sundry creditors represent income, it is income from a source which has already been taxed. (iv) NavinShantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-32 (2) (4), [Mumbai 2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 219/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and brought the same to tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”. 6. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The CIT(A) held that section 44AD is a special provision ... income is from any particular source. It is for the assessee to prove that, even if the sundry creditors represent income, it is income from a source which has already been taxed. (iv) NavinShantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-32 (2) (4), [Mumbai 2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 218/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and brought the same to tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”. 6. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The CIT(A) held that section 44AD is a special provision ... income is from any particular source. It is for the assessee to prove that, even if the sundry creditors represent income, it is income from a source which has already been taxed. (iv) NavinShantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-32 (2) (4), [Mumbai 2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 217/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and brought the same to tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”. 6. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The CIT(A) held that section 44AD is a special provision ... income is from any particular source. It is for the assessee to prove that, even if the sundry creditors represent income, it is income from a source which has already been taxed. (iv) NavinShantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-32 (2) (4), [Mumbai 2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib

Mr. Gregory Francis D'Silva, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 216/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and brought the same to tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”. 6. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The CIT(A) held that section 44AD is a special provision ... income is from any particular source. It is for the assessee to prove that, even if the sundry creditors represent income, it is income from a source which has already been taxed. (iv) NavinShantilal Mehta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-32 (2) (4), [Mumbai 2018] 90 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

assessee de horse the business of the undertaking. If the income earned by the assessee is held to be falling under the head, Income from other sources, the same will not qualify for the deduction section 10 AA of the Act. 15.10. From the above sources that have yielded income

ACIT- Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Cg Power & Industrial Solution Ltd. (Formerly Known As Crompton Greaves Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2955/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
Section 14Section 14ASection 35Section 80I

assess rental income from letting of CG house under the head “Income from house property” and “income from service charges” under the head “Income from other sources”. The assessee has also raised an additional ground supporting the order of Ld CIT(A). 47. We heard the parties on this issue ... ITAT directed the AO to assess rental income under the head ‘Income from house property’ and service charges income under the head ‘Income from other sources’. Accordingly, taking the cue from the orders passed in AY 2008-09, the assessee raised an additional ground before Ld CIT(A) in this

DCIT Cent. Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hiranandani Construction Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1849/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Vs. M/S. Hiranandani Central Circle – 1(2) Constructions Pvt Ltd 906, 9Th Floor, Pratishta 511, Dalmal Towers, Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg 211, Nariman Point, (Annexe), Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach0409H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri K Gopal Sr. Adv & Shri Om Kandalkar, Adv Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A)-47, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Tejinder Pal SinghFor Respondent: Shri K Gopal Sr. Adv and Shri Om Kandalkar, Adv
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

officer to treat the interest income of Rs. 1,22,77,372/-, being interest earned on fixed deposits as 'Business Income' instead of 'Income from Other Sources' without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers ... from bank deposits and ICD income as business income and the AO has issued show cause notice to treat as income from other sources. Whereas the assessee has filed the explanations and mentioned that the assessee has obtained loans from banks for working capital and construction activities. Since the payments

Sanjay Badani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 982/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sanjay Badani Acit – 10(3) Unit No. 405, Hind Rajasthan Centre, Now Known As 15(2)(1), D. S. Phalke Road, Dadar (E) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 014

For Appellant: Shri Margav ShuklaFor Respondent: 25.08.2022
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23(1)Section 250

shown salary income, income from house property, partner’s remuneration from partnership firm, short term capital gain on sale of shares and income from other sources. 4. During the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer (‘A.O.’ for short) observed that the assessee owned three flats and one office premises

The Thanjavur District Co Op Milk Producers Union Limited, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, Circle2(1), Trichy

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

ITA 404/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.404/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Thanjavur District Co Op The Principal Milk Producers Union Limited, Vs Commissioner Of Income No.1, Nanjikottai Road, Tax-1, Madurai. Thanjavur – 613006. Pan: Aaaat 0224 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By K.Meenakshisundaram - Itp Revenue By Shri M.Rajan – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Against The Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Act) Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Madurai-1, Dated 26/03/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26/3/2022 Received By The Appellant On 1/4/2022 Is Objected To On The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Madurai Erred In Setting Aside The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-2(1) Trichy Dated 5/11/2019 For The Assessment Year 2017- 2018 Under Section 263 On Mere Assumptions & Presumptions That The Order Had Been Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Misdirected Himself That The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue Simply For The Reason That The

Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

provisions of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, and the same has to be disallowed and assessed separately under the head income from other sources. The assessing officer has failed to take congnizance of the above facts and wrongly allowed the deduction claimed

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2704/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Plant & Machinery and placed in Short Term Deposit with bank till payment was made and used in bill discounting was taxable as income from other sources. In the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., the Hon. Supreme Court observed that "Interest income is always of a revenue nature, unless ... against the letter of credit for supply of equipment, scrap sales etc. is a Revenue Receipt. It is accordingly charged to tax as income from other sources u/s 56 of the Income tax Act. 6.1 Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) also confirmed

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2703/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Plant & Machinery and placed in Short Term Deposit with bank till payment was made and used in bill discounting was taxable as income from other sources. In the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., the Hon. Supreme Court observed that "Interest income is always of a revenue nature, unless ... against the letter of credit for supply of equipment, scrap sales etc. is a Revenue Receipt. It is accordingly charged to tax as income from other sources u/s 56 of the Income tax Act. 6.1 Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) also confirmed

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2605/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Plant & Machinery and placed in Short Term Deposit with bank till payment was made and used in bill discounting was taxable as income from other sources. In the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., the Hon. Supreme Court observed that "Interest income is always of a revenue nature, unless ... against the letter of credit for supply of equipment, scrap sales etc. is a Revenue Receipt. It is accordingly charged to tax as income from other sources u/s 56 of the Income tax Act. 6.1 Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) also confirmed

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2604/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Plant & Machinery and placed in Short Term Deposit with bank till payment was made and used in bill discounting was taxable as income from other sources. In the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., the Hon. Supreme Court observed that "Interest income is always of a revenue nature, unless ... against the letter of credit for supply of equipment, scrap sales etc. is a Revenue Receipt. It is accordingly charged to tax as income from other sources u/s 56 of the Income tax Act. 6.1 Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) also confirmed

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3). Mumbai, Mumbai vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

ITA 894/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

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

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai. vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

ITA 893/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

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

Lakshmanan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2744/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2882/Chny/2018 & नि◌धा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Mr.Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, No.7/2, 1St Floor, Akm Nest, Non-Corporate Ward-1(3), Jawaharlal Nehru Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpl 4326 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 43(5)Section 45

appeal. 3. The brief facts extracted from ITA No.2882/Chny/2018 are that the assessee is an individual derives income from certain capital gains and income from other sources filed his return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 30.07.2015 admitting total income of Rs.1,10,240/-. During the course

Lakshmanan Revathi, Chennai vs. ITO N.C.W 1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2883/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2882/Chny/2018 & नि◌धा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Mr.Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, No.7/2, 1St Floor, Akm Nest, Non-Corporate Ward-1(3), Jawaharlal Nehru Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpl 4326 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 43(5)Section 45

appeal. 3. The brief facts extracted from ITA No.2882/Chny/2018 are that the assessee is an individual derives income from certain capital gains and income from other sources filed his return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 30.07.2015 admitting total income of Rs.1,10,240/-. During the course