← 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

DCIT, CC - 5(1), Mumbai vs. Parag Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6772/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

14 Appeals 1 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH

DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Mumbai vs. Pratik Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6761/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

14 Appeals 1 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH

DCIT, CC 5 (1), Mumbai vs. Pratik Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6759/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

14 Appeals 1 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH

DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Mumbai vs. Pratik Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6757/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

14 Appeals 1 M/s R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. DCIT, CC-6(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH

West Gujarat Exdpress Way Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 483/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Govindekar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

holding that the interest income of Rs. 1,56,61,845/- was taxable under the head Business Income and not under the head Income from other Sources without appreciating the fact that the income was not derived from the assessee? 3. The Appellant prays that the order ... income’. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings, treated the interest income as ‘income from other sources’, while computing the total income of the assessee. 17. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order, by following the decisions rendered in assessee

ACIT, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. West Gujarat Express Way Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2496/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Govindekar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

holding that the interest income of Rs. 1,56,61,845/- was taxable under the head Business Income and not under the head Income from other Sources without appreciating the fact that the income was not derived from the assessee? 3. The Appellant prays that the order ... income’. The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings, treated the interest income as ‘income from other sources’, while computing the total income of the assessee. 17. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order, by following the decisions rendered in assessee

Smt/ Pawan M Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 23 (2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 7852/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavya SundeshaFor Respondent: Smt. Smita Nair,Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 54Section 54F

erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax an amount of Rs.8,57,000/- as Income from Other Sources without acknowledging the fact that the said amount was not the appellant's income as it was neither accrued nor received by the appellant in whatsoever ... balance amount of Rs. 8,57,000 (Rs. 23,73,161 minus Rs. 15,16,161), the AO added the differential amount as income from other sources. The AO also denied the exemption of Rs. 7,23,711 claimed under section 54F in respect of sale of gold ornaments

Joseph Mudaliar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, -CC 4 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7199/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Sharma a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 250

free securities. 6. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in setting off the business loss of the year against capital gains instead of income from other sources. 7. The Learned CITIA) erred in charging interest U/s 234A, 234B, 234C of the I.T.Act, 1961.” 3. The assessee is an individual ... capital from M/s Alex International under the head business income. Besides business income, the assessee has also shown income from house property and income from other sources being interest income. During the year, the assessee has also earned share of profit from the aforesaid partnership firms, however the same

M/S J Kantilal & Co, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-18 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6723/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56

erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in computing bank FD interest income of Rs. 13,06,581/- under the head "Income from Other Sources" as against the head "Profits & Gains of Business or Profession" as computed by the Appellant. 2.2 It is submitted that in the facts ... grounds no.2.1 and 2.2, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to treating the interest income arising from Bank Fixed Deposit (F.D) as “Income From Other Sources”. M/s. J. Kantilal & Co. ITA No.6723/Mum./2019 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to the issue, as emanating from the record

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Green Infra Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7529/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 250Section 260ASection 56(1)Section 61Section 78(2)

assessee and deleting the addition of Rs.63,98,16,405/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of share Premium treated as income from other sources u/s.56(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Green Infra Ltd. ITA No.7529/Mum./2016 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... applicable on transfer of funds in nature of revocable transfer of assets, and hence rightly taxed by the Assessing Officer as income from other sources u/s.56(1) of the Act.” 3. The only grievance of the Revenue in the present appeal is against deletion of addition of Rs.63

Sericulturists Cum Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bengaluru

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

ITA 425/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Sericulturists Cum Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Ltd., The Principal 01Sfcs Building, Commissioner Of Near Bus Stop, Income Tax – 2, Sarjapura Town, Bengaluru. Vs. Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 125. Pan: Aaaas6468H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Ranjan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit-2, Bangalore U/S. 263 Of The Act Relating To A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. Tax Effect Relating To Grounds Of Appeal Each Ground Of Appeal The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bengaluru-2 ("Pr. Cit") Dated 30-Mar-2022, Passed Under I. Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ("The Act") N.A Insofar It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To The Law, Weight Of Evidence, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

above, the Learned Pr.CIT, while considering the contention that the interest income of the Appellant is XII. chargeable to tax under the head "income from other sources", ought to have also allowed the deduction of the cost of funds in accordance with section 57 of the Act. The Learned Pr.CIT

K Ranadheer Reddy, Cuddapah vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 264/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy Vs Dcit, Central Circle - 2(1) No.5/19, Kuravapalli (V) C.R. Building, Queen'S Road T. Sundupalli, Cuddapah 516214 Bengaluru 560001 Andhra Pradesh Pan – Amcpr4790E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, Itp Revenue By: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 154Section 156Section 270ASection 271ASection 69Section 69A

section 154 of the Act. (vi) Because, the learned AO has assessed the amount of Rs.4,28,85,414/- under the head, 'income from other sources' and therefore, section 115BBE cannot be invoked. 5. The grounds are taken without prejudice to one another and the Appellant craves leave ... money were declared by the assessee in the statement recorded during search. The assessing office accordingly made the following additions under the head “income from other sources” while completing the assessment u/s.143(3). (i) Undisclosed principle and interest – Rs.4,28,85,414 (ii) Unexplained money u/s.69A – Rs.9,72,500 Subsequently

DCIT - CC- 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Narendra Gehlaut, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1429/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1429/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-6(4) बिधम/ Shri Narendra Gehlaut Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, 875, Sector-17B, Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Gurugram, Haryana- Point, Mumbai-400021. 122001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aazpg9630K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal Revenue By: Shri Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai Dated 21.10.2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - “(1) Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Additions / Disallowances Made In The Assessment Order Is Not Sustainable As They Are Without Reference To Any Incriminating Material Found During The Search, Without Appreciating That The Department Has Filed An Slp Against The Decision Of The Hon'Ble High Court Of Bombay In The Case Of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Limited Reported In 374 Itr 645 (Bom), Which Has Been Admitted & Directed To Be Listed By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India, Vide Order Dated 12.10.2015 Reported In [2015] 64 Taxmann.Com 34 (Sc) ?”

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

assessee’s computation 1,93,41,390 II Income from house property As per assessee’s computation 25,20,000 III Income from other sources As per assessee’s computation 1,74,974 Gross Total Income 2,20,36,364 Additions made in the original assessment order

Asst CIT 27(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Merit Magnum Construction, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6657/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Sh. Mahiita Nair, CIT-DR
Section 292CSection 68Section 69CSection 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

Assessing officer to make enquiry. If he is satisfied that these entries are not genuine he has every right to add these as Income from other sources. But before rejecting the assessee's explanation, A.O. must make proper enquiries and in the absence of proper enquiries, addition cannot be sustained ... view of the same the AO treated the interest income of Rs.4, 65, 80,794/- as Income from Other Sources. The AO's observations in the assessment order and remand report, assessee’s submissions during the appellate proceedings and replies to the remand report were carefully perused. The assessee

Shri Premkumar Menon, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-17(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3070/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3070/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Premkumar Menon, The Asst. Commissioner Of “Menon Eternity Building” Vs. Income Tax, (10Th Floor), No.165, Non Corporate Circle-17(1), St. Mary’S Road, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 24

assessable under the head “income from house property” as against claimed by the assessee under the head “income from other sources”. For this, the assessee has raised various grounds which are argumentative nature and exhausted and hence, need not be reproduced. 3. The brief facts of the case are that ... from house property” on the basis of annual letting value of the space. The assessee also declared maintenance charges from these premises as “income from other sources” and the details are given in assessment order and the same is being reproduced for the sake of convenience as under: S. Name

Prabha Srisrimal, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3513/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 68

Assessing Officer to delete the additions made in respect of unexplained cash credit to the tune of Rs.20,85,000/- under the head "Income from Other Sources". b. Pass such other orders as the Honourable Appeallate Tribunal may deem fit. 3. The brief facts of the case are that ... assessee is an individual and derived income from house property, income from business, income from capital gains and income from other sources, filed her return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 22.09.2015, declaring total income of Rs.29,31,200/-. The case has been selected for scrutiny and during

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3205/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

income chargeable to tax had been escaped assessment on account of assessment of interest income under the head ‘income from business’ as against ‘income from other sources’. According to the AO, the assessee has offered interest income under the head ‘income from business and profession’ and also claimed various expenses ... assessment and also confirmed the additions made by the AO towards disallowance of expenses and also assessment of other income under the head ‘income from other sources’. ITA Nos.3201-3205/Chny/2016 & M/s.PVP Ventures Ltd. :: 12 :: 18. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in confirming

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3203/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

income chargeable to tax had been escaped assessment on account of assessment of interest income under the head ‘income from business’ as against ‘income from other sources’. According to the AO, the assessee has offered interest income under the head ‘income from business and profession’ and also claimed various expenses ... assessment and also confirmed the additions made by the AO towards disallowance of expenses and also assessment of other income under the head ‘income from other sources’. ITA Nos.3201-3205/Chny/2016 & M/s.PVP Ventures Ltd. :: 12 :: 18. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in confirming

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3202/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

income chargeable to tax had been escaped assessment on account of assessment of interest income under the head ‘income from business’ as against ‘income from other sources’. According to the AO, the assessee has offered interest income under the head ‘income from business and profession’ and also claimed various expenses ... assessment and also confirmed the additions made by the AO towards disallowance of expenses and also assessment of other income under the head ‘income from other sources’. ITA Nos.3201-3205/Chny/2016 & M/s.PVP Ventures Ltd. :: 12 :: 18. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in confirming

M/S. Pvp Ventures Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3201/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3201-3202, 3203-3204 & 3205/Chny/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner- Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Of Income Tax, No.2, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai-600 031. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- V. M/S.Pvp Ventures Ltd., Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), No.2, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaacs 3101 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

income chargeable to tax had been escaped assessment on account of assessment of interest income under the head ‘income from business’ as against ‘income from other sources’. According to the AO, the assessee has offered interest income under the head ‘income from business and profession’ and also claimed various expenses ... assessment and also confirmed the additions made by the AO towards disallowance of expenses and also assessment of other income under the head ‘income from other sources’. ITA Nos.3201-3205/Chny/2016 & M/s.PVP Ventures Ltd. :: 12 :: 18. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in confirming