← 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

Trhiruvananthapuram Road Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 14 (3)91), Mumbai

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

ITA 7600/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Trhiruvananthapuram Road Dy. Cit 14(3)(1) Development Company Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, The Il & Fs Financial Centre Plot C022 G Block Bkc Bandra M.K. Road, Vs. East, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct0547J Assessee By : Shri Bhupal Rapelli, Ar Revenue By : Ms Vatsalaa Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal Rapelli, ARFor Respondent: Ms Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

assessee on toll roads. iii. Treating the income earned of Rs. 21,16,990 on fixed deposits as taxable income Under the head income from other sources instead of income from business iv. Addition of interest income of ₹ 43,946 as income from other sources by computing the total income ... assessee has denied the receipt of the said interest and therefore same was included as income of the assessee Under the head income from other sources. The AO further disallowed the credit of tax deduction at source amounting to ₹ 58,566. Accordingly the total income of the assessee was computed

Heena Suresh Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6617/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blesuresh M. Jain Huf V. Ito-19(3)(4), 52A Nanu Bhai Desai Road 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 Mulji Thakersi Building 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aalhs7460R (Appellant) (Respondent) Heena Suresh Jain V.

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Vaibhav Jain
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)

extracted for ready reference:- “3. Brief facts of the case: The assessee has filed his/her return showing income from salary of Rs.84,000/- & income from other sources of Rs.6,12,677/-. However, in its computation of income the assessee has 15 ITA NO.6614 & 6617/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) Suresh M. Jain ... appreciation to the assessee’s’ income on the suspicion that these were fictitious transactions and that the appreciation actually represented the assessee’s’ income from undisclosed sources. In ITA-18-2017 also the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not produced any evidence whatsoever

Suresh M Jain HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6614/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blesuresh M. Jain Huf V. Ito-19(3)(4), 52A Nanu Bhai Desai Road 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 Mulji Thakersi Building 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aalhs7460R (Appellant) (Respondent) Heena Suresh Jain V.

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Vaibhav Jain
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)

extracted for ready reference:- “3. Brief facts of the case: The assessee has filed his/her return showing income from salary of Rs.84,000/- & income from other sources of Rs.6,12,677/-. However, in its computation of income the assessee has 15 ITA NO.6614 & 6617/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) Suresh M. Jain ... appreciation to the assessee’s’ income on the suspicion that these were fictitious transactions and that the appreciation actually represented the assessee’s’ income from undisclosed sources. In ITA-18-2017 also the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not produced any evidence whatsoever

Haris Kalandan Mohammed, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

ITA 435/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 68

cancelled. 6. The learned Pr.CIT failed to appreciate that the amount declared by the appellant of Rs. 24,84,727/- as income from other sources, cannot be treated as unexplained credits as per section 68 of the Act and consequently the provisions of section 115BBE ... submitted that the additional income admitted during search proceedings on account of cash expense had been declared as commission income under the head "Income from other sources" in the return of income filed. The AO accepted the admission and assessment order was passed. Page

Sai Shipping Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer/NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 427/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

Secondly, it is stated that it is noticed that petitioner has claimed deduction under Section 80 IB of the Act in respect of income from other sources which is as judicially held not allowable. Thirdly, it is stated that it is noticed that petitioner has wrongly claimed deduction under Section ... instead of claiming on the business income and has wrongly claimed deduction under Section 80 IB of the Act on capital gain and income from other sources and thus petitioner has failed to disclose true and full material facts before Purti Parab 10/24 909-WP-2815-2019.doc Respondent No.1. There is nothing else

Anuj Bhagwati, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1845/MUM/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Anuj Bhagwati Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Nishant House, 6, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mumbai, Carmichael Road, Room No.533, 5Th Floor, Cumballa Hill S.O, Mumbai-400086 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aehpb1858C Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 90

case are that, the assessee is an individual and resident in India and also in USA and derives income from salary and income from other sources. The assessee has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 23/07/2018 disclosing a total income

Anuj Bhagwati, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1844/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Anuj Bhagwati Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Nishant House, 6, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mumbai, Carmichael Road, Room No.533, 5Th Floor, Cumballa Hill S.O, Mumbai-400086 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aehpb1858C Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 90

case are that, the assessee is an individual and resident in India and also in USA and derives income from salary and income from other sources. The assessee has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 23/07/2018 disclosing a total income

M/S Well Wisher Construction Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Ward 18 (1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 7605/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Khushiram JadhwaniFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Mohite, Sr.D.R

head ‘income from house property’, loss under the head ‘business or profession’, loss under the head ‘capital gains’ and loss under the head ‘income from other sources’. The return filed by the assessee was subjected to scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer inter alia observed that assessee has not undertaken ... ground of lack of any business activity. The Assessing Officer however allowed a lump sum amount of Rs. 7 lac while computing the ‘income from other sources’ towards maintaining the corporate status of the assessee attributable to audit fee, ROC fee and sum professional fees and staff salary as warranted

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 33(1), Mumbai vs. Alf Engineering Company, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4204/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 80I

hand are : assessee is into the business of manufacturing of automotive chasis, spare parts & fabricators and has shown income from business/profession and income from other sources during the year under assessment. Assessee claimed deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘ the Act’) to the tune

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 33(1), Mumbai vs. Alf Engineering Company, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2055/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 80I

hand are : assessee is into the business of manufacturing of automotive chasis, spare parts & fabricators and has shown income from business/profession and income from other sources during the year under assessment. Assessee claimed deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘ the Act’) to the tune

DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Aban Investments Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 830/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14A

crux of the issue that the assessee does not have any business as per the financials, hence the assessment of interest income as “Income from Other Sources” after omitting the ineligible claim of interest expenditure was correct? 3. The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the factual aspect that ... interest income was Rs.1,60,23,224/-. Therefore, the AO added interest earned of Rs.1,18,41,893/- and assessed the same as income from other sources and disallowed business loss claimed by assessee amounting to Rs.1,68,55,901/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before

Income Tax Officer-13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kiritbhai K. Thummar, Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s cross objection is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 697/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

under Shri Kiritbhai K. Thummar ITA No.697/Mum./2018 CO No. 115/Mum./2019 consideration, the assessee has shown income from business and profession and income from other sources. The assessee filed the return of income on 30/09/2012 declaring total income at Rs. 54,89,832. The said return was processed under

Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Officer, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 708/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Vs. Ito, Flat B002, Renaissance Brindavan, Cpc, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru South, Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Ahwps 5221 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

assessee filed the return of income on 24-07-2017 admitting an income of Rs.69.22,004 which included income from other sources of Rs.6,96,084. The income from other sources included dividend income of Rs.4.77,500 received from a Denmark Company. On this dividend received from Denmark

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2550/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 45

subject to provisions thereof a is not a revenue receipt, chargeable to tax under the head 'Income From Other Sources' on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), failed to appreciate that the Interest Income from Other Sources ... credited to the books of accounts as premium on preference shares was brought to tax under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’, by the AO. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition made by the AO, the assessee preferred before the first appellate authority, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1)(4), Banglaoore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2332/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 45

subject to provisions thereof a is not a revenue receipt, chargeable to tax under the head 'Income From Other Sources' on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), failed to appreciate that the Interest Income from Other Sources ... credited to the books of accounts as premium on preference shares was brought to tax under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’, by the AO. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition made by the AO, the assessee preferred before the first appellate authority, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

H.M.Pandey, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2483/CHNY/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

regard to the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of Rs,75,39,200/- under the head ‘Income from other sources’ as gratification received by assessee for awarding of contract for supply of TV sets, based on Trial Court decision on alleged gratification received from Videocon ... with any claim of expenditure during the course of assessment proceedings, I have added the entire proceedings from the two TV companies as income from other sources.” Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO in making addition

M/S. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2243/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Biju, M.K., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80GSection 92C

regarded as expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of making or earning income chargeable under the head 'income from other sources', so as to be allowable as a permissible deduction u/s 57(iii). The Tribunal. however, on further appeal, disagreed with the view taken

M/S. Ukn Properties Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1739/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 56(2)(vii)

invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act to make an addition of Rs.6,95,35,940 under the head ‘income from other sources’ by holding as under:- “7.1 The assessee company during the assessment year 2012-13 invested in equity shares of two companies namely ... shortfall in payment of premium to the FMV of the shares should not be brought to tax in its case under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. In the case of M/s. Waterline 14otels Private Limited, a valuation Report has been submitted by the said company to its jurisdictional Assessing

Virugalpattipudhur Rimary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society, Tirupur vs. CIT-(A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 632/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.632/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Virugalpattipudhur Primary Ward-1 Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Pollachi. Society, K, 752, Negamam, Virugalpattipudhur, Tirupur-642 120. Pan: Aaaav 9952D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

making additions towards disallowance of interest earned from Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank amounting to Rs.4,74,149/- under the head ‘income from other sources’. The Assessing Officer, while doing so, has relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. The Totgars ... explanation furnished by the assessee and accordingly, rejected arguments of the assessee and sustained additions 5 towards interest income under the head ‘income from other sources’. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that this

Amit Mahendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5807/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Radha HalbeFor Respondent: Smt. Smita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

assessee has paid interest amounting to Rs. 26,05,403, which has resulted in loss of Rs. 15,76,055 under the head „income from other sources‟. This loss is set off against income from business of Rs. 30,59,279, comprising of remuneration and interest from firm in which ... proceedings, the Authorised Representative appearing for the assessee admitted that interest paid of Rs. 5,37,438, resulting in loss under the head „income from other sources‟ does not fit into the conditions of section 57(iii) or under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and agreed for disallowance