← 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

Addl CIT RG 10(2), Mumbai vs. Geometric Softwar Solutions Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground no

ITA 6219/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Geometric Software The Acit Solutions Company Ltd. Ward 10(2), [ Now Merged With Hcl Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Technologies Limited ] Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Mumbai-400 020 Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabcg 0066 A Co No. 157/Mum/2011 (Arising In Ita No.6219/Mum/2010 For A.Y. 2005–06) M/S Geometric Software Solutions Company Ltd. The Acit (Now Gemetric Ltd.) [ Now Ward 10(2), Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Merged With Hcl Vs. Technologies Limited] Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Cross Objector) Assessee By : Shri Porus F. Kaka & Shri Manish Kanth, Ars‟ Revenue By : Shri Sumit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Porus F. Kaka &For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 10ASection 14A

confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing the amount received as "Income from House Property" instead of under the head "Income from Other Sources" Having regard to the facts of the case, the Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to tax the said amount under ... head "Income from Other Sources" 5) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in computing the disallowance Geometric software solutions co. ltd; A.Y. 05–06 under Section 14A of the Act aggregating to Rs.3,82,733/-, in accordance with sub-clause

Geometric Software Solutins Co. Ltd ( Now Gemetric Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no

ITA 5975/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Geometric Software The Acit Solutions Company Ltd. Ward 10(2), [ Now Merged With Hcl Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Technologies Limited ] Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Mumbai-400 020 Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabcg 0066 A Co No. 157/Mum/2011 (Arising In Ita No.6219/Mum/2010 For A.Y. 2005–06) M/S Geometric Software Solutions Company Ltd. The Acit (Now Gemetric Ltd.) [ Now Ward 10(2), Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Merged With Hcl Vs. Technologies Limited] Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Cross Objector) Assessee By : Shri Porus F. Kaka & Shri Manish Kanth, Ars‟ Revenue By : Shri Sumit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Porus F. Kaka &For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 10ASection 14A

confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing the amount received as "Income from House Property" instead of under the head "Income from Other Sources" Having regard to the facts of the case, the Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to tax the said amount under ... head "Income from Other Sources" 5) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in computing the disallowance Geometric software solutions co. ltd; A.Y. 05–06 under Section 14A of the Act aggregating to Rs.3,82,733/-, in accordance with sub-clause

M/S. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 746/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Divyasree Chambers’ Commissioner Of Wing-A, O Shaugnessy Income Tax, Road, Bengaluru – 2, Langford Town, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aafcc2775E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By Ld.Pcit, Bangalore -2 U/S. 263 Of The Act For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru -2, Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 30/03/2021, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar
Section 143Section 263Section 80Section 801A

resulted into a surplus of Rs.2,21,877/- i.e. [Rs.9,86,36,699- minus Rs.9,84,14,822/-] as forming a part of 'Income from other sources' and eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. For the above

Vikas Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-30(3) (5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 49/MUM/2022[ 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.47/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.49/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.48/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.51/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vikas Sharma बिधम/ Ito-Ward-30(3)(5) B-202, Poonam Enclave, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Film City Road, Malad (E), Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400097. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bbeps8095M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Raheja Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

justice. 3. Brief facts as noted by the AO are that the assessee is an individual who has derived income from salary, and income from other sources. The AO notes that the assessee had filed return of income on A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vikas Sharma 25.05.2011 declaring total income

Vikas Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 30(3) (5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.47/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.49/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.48/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.51/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vikas Sharma बिधम/ Ito-Ward-30(3)(5) B-202, Poonam Enclave, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Film City Road, Malad (E), Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400097. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bbeps8095M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Raheja Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

justice. 3. Brief facts as noted by the AO are that the assessee is an individual who has derived income from salary, and income from other sources. The AO notes that the assessee had filed return of income on A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vikas Sharma 25.05.2011 declaring total income

Dhananjay G. Mishra, Mumbai vs. CIT Appeal NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 477/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.477/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Dhananjay G. Mishra बिधम/ Acit, Circle-20(1) Prop. Yeoman Marine Piramal Chambers, Vs. Services (Yms) Lalbaugh, Mumbai. W-1402, World Crest, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, The World Towers Delisle Road, Mumbai-400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aflpm1475K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish Mody Revenue By: Shri Mahiita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.12.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Not Allowing The Credit Of Tds Of Rs.24,41,710/-. 3. Brief Facts Pertaining To The Issue Is That Assessee Is An Individual Having A Proprietary Concern Running In The Name Of Yeoman Marine Services ( Herein After In Short ‘Yms’) Which Was Succeeded By A Private Limited Company Yeoman Marine Services Private Limited (Herein After In Short ‘Ymspl’) W.E.F. 01.11.2015. Appellant Is A Contractor In Ship Repairing Business. During The Year The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Mahiita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 194CSection 199

amounting to Rs.24,41,710/-. During the year under consideration appellant derived income from Salaries, Profits and Gains of Business or Profession and income from other sources. 5.2 The main issue involve in this appeal is the disallowance of TDS credit of Rs. 24,41,710/-. As per records

Vikas Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-30(3) (5), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.47/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.49/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.48/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.51/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vikas Sharma बिधम/ Ito-Ward-30(3)(5) B-202, Poonam Enclave, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Vs. Film City Road, Malad (E), Kurla Complex, Bandra Mumbai-400097. (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bbeps8095M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Raheja Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

justice. 3. Brief facts as noted by the AO are that the assessee is an individual who has derived income from salary, and income from other sources. The AO notes that the assessee had filed return of income on A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vikas Sharma 25.05.2011 declaring total income

Courtyard Real Estate Pvt. Ltd, `Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

ITA 2312/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Abyt Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Courtyard Real Estate Private Limited 1St Floor, Windsor, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz East Mumbai-400098 Pan: Aadcr0870K ...... Appellant Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(4), Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ..…Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Jitendra Jain, Ca Respondent By : Shri Shyam Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As Cit (A)] Vide Order Dated 26.10.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Solitary Issue Disputed In Appeal Is As Under: “1. The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Treating The Interest Income Earned On Fixed Deposits (Fd) Of Rs. 60,49,527/- As “Income From Other Sources” For The Year As Against Reducing The Same From The Total Cost Of Work In Progress. 2. The Appellant Submits That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Interest Income Earned On Fd Of Rs. 60,49,527/- Reduces The Interest Cost On Funds Borrowed For The Project & Thus Has Been Rightly Reduced From The Cost Of Project. 3. Your Appellant Craves Leave To Add, To Alter, Or To Amend The Aforesaid Grounds Of Appeal. 2 M/S Courtyard Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee-Company Is In The Business Of Real Estates Development & Construction. It Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2017- 18 On 30.3.2018 Declaring Income For The Year At Rs. 56,72,910/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Was Constructing A Residential Project At Pokhran Road No 2, Thane. It Was Following Percentage Completion Method (Pcm) Of Accounting For Revenue Recognition.

For Appellant: Shri. Jitendra Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Joshi, Sr. DR

erred in confirming the action of AO in treating the Interest income earned on Fixed Deposits (FD) of Rs. 60,49,527/- as “Income from Other Sources” for the year as against reducing the same from the total cost of Work in Progress. 2. The Appellant submits that ... interest income of Rs. 60.49 lacs has been reduced from work in progress and why the same shall not be treated as income from other sources. The assessee-company explained that during the year under consideration it has borrowed Rs. 175 Crores from Piramal Finance Limited

Dr. P. Dayananda Pai, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 150/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2005-06 Dr. P Dayananda Pai, Vs. Dcit, 10/1, Lakshminarayana Complex, Circle – 2(2), Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Abapp 4418 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 9.12.2019 Of Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru, Relating To Ay 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. He Is Also Referred To As “Pdp” In This Order. He Is In The Business Of Real Estate For Over Four Decades. He Carried On Business Of Real Estate In His Individual Capacity. From Ay 95-96 He Transferred All The Rights In Properties Under Various Agreements To A Partnership Firm “M/S.P.Dayanand Pai”, Vide Deed Of Partnership Dated 1-4-1994. In This Firm Mr.P.Dayanand Pai & His Brother Mr.P.Satish & 9 Other Individuals Were Partners. Thereafter By A Deed Of Partnership Dated 9.6.2000 The Firm “M/S.P.Dayanada Pai” Merged Its Business With Another Partnership Firm “M/S.Canara Housing Development Company” (Hereinafter Page 2 Of 39

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153A

income from CHCD claimed exempt u/s.10(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) besides Parnters remuneration from CHCD of Rs.2,40,000/-, “Income from other sources” of Rs.50,86,178/-. After claiming deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act of Rs.12,000/-, the total income of Rs.50

Giraffe Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 9, Mumbai

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

ITA 2663/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri.S.Anbuselvam.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 40A(2)Section 92D

revised computation, it is observed that the assessee has shown Rs.91,336/- on account of interest received from Tata Power under the head Income from Other Sources'. The assessee has received interest from bank fixed deposits and interest on loans to the tune of Rs.6 ... interest received from fixed deposits and interest on loans to the tune of Rs.6,31,42,956 / - as Income from Business' as against Income from Other Sources' by setting off of the brought forward business losses against the interest income. In view of this, it appears that the assessment order

ITO 25 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 6805/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 6805 /Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2012-13 ) Ito- 25(3)(3) Vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah Room No. 606, 6Th Floor 701, Saroj Bldg, C-10, Pratyakshakar Sardar Vallabhbhai Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Patel Road, Mumbai -400051. Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400056. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaips0543C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.T.Shankar.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Anuj Kishnadwala.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed The By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-77, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.T.Shankar.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Anuj Kishnadwala.AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 57

from profit and gains from partnership firm M/s. Sadguru Properties and M/s Sadguru and Krishna Developers and interest income is offered under the income from other sources. The A.O on perusal of the balance sheet as on 31-03-2012 found that the assessee has unsecured loans ... /Mum/2018 Rahul Kantilal Shah., Mumbai. 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