← 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

Greatwall Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 4158/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Chaudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 68

brought forward business loss/unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.51,67,119/-). The details of the income are as under: Income from business Rs.41,86,125 Income from Other sources Rs.9,80,994 Less brought forward Rs.51,67,119 unabsorbed depreciation Total Income NIL Page 2 of 5 ITA No. 4158/DEL/2025

Diling Tatak, Papum Pare vs. ITO, Ward- North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 277/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Pandey
Section 10(26)Section 144Section 250

case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify --- (i) Contract receipts, Fees or Commission Receipts (ii) Deduction from Income from Other Sources and (iii) Refund claim. Statutory notices were issued to the assessee by ld. Assessing Officer [AO] asking certain details from the assessee. However

Sanjay Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward-4(5) Patna, Patna

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

ITA 343/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 250Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 44A

circumstances on the case the NFAC has erred in making additions of (i) Rs. 77,53,000/- on account of income from undisclosed sources out of disclosed receipts of Rs. 82,53,000/- by alleging that provisions of section 44AD and 44AB have not been complied with even though books ... fact and in law in treating receipts of Rs 77,53,000/- out of disclosed turnover of Rs 82,53,000/- as income from undisclosed sources only on the basis of doubt and suspicion without bringing in any evidence on record and also without appreciating material available on record that

Gopaljee Prasad, Darbhanga vs. Dc/Ac Cir-3, Darbhanga

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

ITA 465/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

confirming the addition of Rs. 32,77,500/- again which had already been declared by the appellant as income under the head Income from Other Sources in its Return of Income. 3. For that the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that in the line of business of assessee ... purchase account resulting into increase of Closing stock and crediting Capital Account and this amount has been offered for taxation under the head 'Income from other sources'. 4. For that the Assessing officer and also Ld. CIT(A) has erred in stating that the assessee has brought the undisclosed stock

Nandkumar Baban Saste, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 99/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A

against Income as per Return of Rs. 138/- and addition of Rs. 88,22,870/- is on account of Income from Other Sources. The addition made on that account should be deleted 2. Without prejudice to Ground No 1 the A.O. has erred both on facts ... treating amount of Rs. 88,22,870/- as Income from Other Sources should be deleted 3. Without prejudice to Ground No 2, the fact that the relevant details of the amount added are available with the assessee. 4. The Assessing Officer erred in charging interest under sections 234A

Vinayak Hanumantrao Ghorpade, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1439/PUN/2024[AY2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

Section 153ASection 250Section 43BSection 68Section 80C

No.8 : 37. This Ground pertains to Addition of Rs.3,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer noted that Assessee had shown Rs.8,07,195/- as Income from Other Sources in the Capital Account. However, in the Computation of Income, Income under the head “Income from Other Sources” was only Rs.4

Vinayak Hanumantrao Ghorpade, Pune vs. Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Pune

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1438/PUN/2024[AY2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

Section 153ASection 250Section 43BSection 68Section 80C

No.8 : 37. This Ground pertains to Addition of Rs.3,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer noted that Assessee had shown Rs.8,07,195/- as Income from Other Sources in the Capital Account. However, in the Computation of Income, Income under the head “Income from Other Sources” was only Rs.4

Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Limited, Halkusagal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gadag

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1475/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/S. Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari The Income Tax Officer, Bank Limited, Ward 1, Halkusagal. Vs. Gadag Pan: Aaaav1081D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
Section 143Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

aforesaid investment is out of the surplus funds of the society and therefore interest income is chargeable to tax under the head of Income from other sources. The Assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the above sum. Therefore, according ... fund of the Assessee.Therefore, it cannot be considered as a business income of the Assessee, and it must be charged to tax as income from other sources. The deduction of income from other sources would be allowable only u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. As the Assessee has invested

Income Tax Officer, Puri vs. Krushna Chandra Pujapanda, Puri

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 448/CTK/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.448/Ctk/2024 C.O. No.06/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23) Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Vs Krushna Chandra Pujapanda, Bhavan, Penthakata, Puri Matimandap Sahi, H.O.Puri Town, Puri. Pan No. : Abdpp 0879 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Chatterjee, Ca : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 5 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 5 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 4.9.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No.Nfac/2021-22/10363554 For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Cross Objection Is Filed By The Assessee In Appeal Filed By The Revenue In Ita No.448/Ctk/2024. 3. Shri Ashok Kumar Chatterjee, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Chatterjee, CA
Section 54Section 54F

regard to said transaction. To this, ld CIT DR submitted that in the assessment order, the Assessing officer has added Rs.9.29.50,000/- as income from other sources in respect of sham transaction and has denied the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 54F. It was the submission that

Raghava Sastry Kalyani Renduchintala, Eluru vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 6/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

assessment by making an addition of Rs.2,04,14,610/- as unexplained money of the assessee. Further he also added Rs.39,957/- as income from other sources. 3. On being aggrieved by the additions made by the Assessing Officer, assessee filed an appeal before

Nagarjuna Vutla, Eluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Eluru

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs

ITA 524/VIZ/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.524/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2024-25) Vs. Income Tax Officer Nagarjuna Vutla 24B-16-20, Yerakamma Street Ward-1 Ashok Nagar, Eluru Income Tax Office West Godavari District - 534002 Eluru, West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aoupn9597D]

Section 143(1)Section 246Section 246A

filed on 06.08.2024 by the consultant without his knowledge and consent. The revised return of income was filed with enhanced “salary income” and “income from other sources”. He also noticed that the revised return of income filed in Form ITR-1 was signed and sent to Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

Venkata Ramana Goda, Visakhapatnam vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 489/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Venkata Ramana Goda, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Pan: Abzpg3216A Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Mrs. K. Hemalatha, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 17/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 08/03/2025. The 2 Venkata Ramana Goda Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Mrs. K. Hemalatha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

response to notice under section 148 of the Act, therefore, the entire amount so credited/received from LIC was to be treated as his income from other sources. The AO, observing that the assessee in his return of income filed under section 148 of the Act, had offered

Rayat Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Satara vs. ITO Ward-5, Satara

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

ITA 373/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajitesh Meena
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Delhi, has erred in disallowing and adding back an amount of ₹1,23,72,556 on account of Business loss Treat as a Income from Other Sources which is not considered Business Income of Karkhana, AO has treat as Income from Other Sources. 2. On the fact ... user charges and not lease rent and the user charges cannot be considered as business receipts and therefore has to be treated as ‘Income from Other Sources’. Based on these observations, the total income of the assessee prior to setting off of the brought forward business loss which amounted

Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Anna Salai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1140/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, FCA &For Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 2(18)Section 2(71)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 8

such subsidiary company has been held by the parent company or by its nominees throughout the previous year.]….” “…Section 56(2)(viib) 56. Income from other sources. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income ... under the head "Income from other sources", if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. (2)In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub- section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Vijaya Bank, Baroda Corporate Centre Bandra Kurla Complex

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2296/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S. Ananthan, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 201Section 40

also subject to the condition that such income should be chargeable to tax under the head income from house property or income from other sources or capital gain along with the voluntary contributions. Such exemption is also provided subject to certain conditions. In view of the above fact it cannot

DCIT - 19(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers vs. Dishant Deepak Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4281/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh
Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

treated the penny stock transaction as 1782/KOL/2018, treated the penny stock transaction as 1782/KOL/2018, treated the penny stock transaction as income from other income from other sources instead of long term capital sources instead of long term capital gain, and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court

Surjeet Singh, Agra vs. ACIT 1(1)(1) Agra, Agra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 385/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Surjeet Singh, Vs. Acit, 158, Pratap Pura, Agra Circle-1(1)(1), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahwps1539D Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 57

NFAC was justified in confirming the disallowances of interest paid on loans in the sum of Rs. 102,04,576/- under the head income from other sources in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record ... income at Rs. 63,19,713/- in the return. The assessee had disclosed business loss of Rs. 3,89,911/- under the head income from other sources worked out as under:- a. Interest from Saving Bank A/c. Rs. 18,704/- b. Sale Mud Rs. 15,93,420/- c. interest received

Sivendra Singh Chauhan, Kannauj vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Farrukhabad

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

ITA 100/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shivendra Singh Chauhan, Vs. Acit, 1, Durga Naga Tirwa, Circle-4(2)(1), Kannauj- 209732 Farrukhabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agvpc5211C

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 41(1)Section 68

Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming addition amounting to Rs. 6,51,295/- made on account of income from other sources in place of business income shown by the Assessee. 5. That the Ist Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that on account ... made an addition of Rs. 6,51,295/- on account of interest income earned on fixed deposits and savings bank under the head income from other sources as against income offered by the assessee as business income. Further, the Learned AO added the increase in sundry creditors

Baldev Singh Bhadoriya, Gwalior vs. ITO-3(2), Gwalior

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

ITA 37/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Smt Kiran Lata Bhadoria, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- L/H Of Late Shri Baldev 3(2), Singh Bhadoria, Gwalior Mig-20, Darpan Colony, 474005, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahopb3071D Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

During the year under consideration, the Assessee has shown income from salary received from Shatabdika Society, short-term capital gains, income from other sources and income from business and profession. During the year under consideration, the Assessee has purchased an agricultural land measuring 5.874 hectares situated at village Baretha, Patwari

Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Sangh, Mithapur vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward (1), Dwarka

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 786/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 270ASection 271A

determining total income at Rs. 59,52,383/-, which inter alia included addition of interest income of Rs. 7,85,993/-, as income from other sources. The A.O. had initiated penalty proceedings and subsequently levied penalty of Rs. 1,33,579/- u/s. 270A of the Act and other years