“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

DE vs. Hibhai P Dungrani, Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4714/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () & Shri Gagan Goyal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Ms.R.M. Madhvi, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business and derives income from capital gains and income from other sources. There was a survey conducted on M/s Radford Global Ltd. and M/s First Financial Services Ltd. and its related concerns on 09.04.2015, where these companies

Dy CIT CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens P. Ltd.(in Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P. Sutaria, Official Liquidator), Mumbai

ITA 554/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.554/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg.(Annexe), Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Hiranandani Palace Gardens Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation Through Ms. Chetna P.Sutaria, Official Liquidator), C-8,9 & 10, Satyam Shopping Center, Mez Floor, Mg Road, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai – 400 077 Pan: Aaccc-8862-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta & Shri Jayesh KapaniFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 153C

assessee has offered interest income under the head ‘Business Income’ per conta the Assessing Officer has held the said interest income as ‘Income from Other Sources’. In so far as the grounds raised by the Revenue are concerned, we find that the same additions were made in the original assessment

Sri Vardahan Vishwanath Vijaya, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(3)(6), Bangalore

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

ITA 379/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Vardhan Vishwanath Vijaya, The Ito, Vs. A-701, Tower – 2, Ward – 5[3][6], Adarsh Palm Retreat Apartments, Bengaluru. Devarabisanahalli, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aajpv 0010 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 143(1)Section 90

assessee is a salaried employee. The assessee has income under the head – salary, income from house property, capital gain and income from other sources including foreign dividends. In the return of income, the assessee claimed credit for taxes paid in USA on dividends received in USA, under section Page

Vasant Investment Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1478/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 194A

Grievances raised by the appellant are as follows:- I. Assessing part of Business Income of Rs. 45.06,310 (interest) as Income from Other Sources a. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of AO of assessing the business income (interest ... from fixed deposits with banks under the head Income from Other Source and not as Income from Business or Profession. b. Your appellant submits that it is an investment company engaged in the business of making investments in various channels and regularly earns income there from like interest, dividend, Assessment

Mp Border Checkpost Development Co Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 14(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 484/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmp Border Checkpost Vs. Ito – 14(2)(2) Development Company 453, 4Th Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, The Il & Fs Financial Mumbai – 400020. Centre, Plot C-22, G- Block, Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm8030K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri. Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) – 22, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Pramod Nikalje.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 37

action of Assessing officer ('AO') qua treating the interest income earned by the appellant amounting to Rs. 5,18,209/- under the head "Income from other sources" instead of the head "Income from Business" 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant ... prays that the addition made by the Learned AO and upheld by CIT-A amounting to Rs. 5,18,209/- under the head "Income from other sources" shall be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the appellant prays to restore

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Dilip J Thakkar, Mumbai

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

ITA 963/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Dcit, Vs. Shri Dilip J Thakkar Central Circle – 6(4) 12/22B, Acropolis, Room No. 1925, 19Th Malabar Hills, Floor, Air India Bldg, Mumbai – 400006. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpt9000H Appellant .. Respondent The Dcit, Vs. Smt Indira D. Thakkar Central Circle – 6(4) 12/22B, Acropolis, Room No. 1925, 19Th Malabar Hills, Floor, Air India Bldg, Mumbai – 400006. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpt3389E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Takkar.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.G.Mehta.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 149(1)

filing of second appeal is 07.02.2020. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and has income from other sources. The assessee has filed the return of income for A.Y 2004-05 on 29.03.2005 disclosing a total income

Sri Ningappa Managuli, Hutti vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Raichur

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

ITA 684/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, A.R., Standing counsel for Revenue

Section 115BSection 68Section 69A

therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will have no application so as to treat the income of the assessee as income from other sources. Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. reported in 84 Taxman 146 on identical facts took ... sufficient cash in hand in the books of account of the assessee, that there was no reason to treat the cash deposits as income from undisclosed sources. The Hon'ble Vishakapatnam Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Hirapanna Jewelers in ITA No. 253/Viz/2020 on identical facts held that when

Mr. Bhaskar Joseph, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1737/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, A.R., Standing counsel for Revenue

Section 131Section 68

aforesaid transaction is Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.55 lakhs - Rs.54 lakhs) and the same declared as my income under the head Income from other sources after deducting the relevant expenditure for the said transaction. Details of M/s. Classic Auto Motives . And in spite of my full effort also I could ... must be taken as receipt from the business. Whether the amount of deposit added u/s. 68 or 69 is income from business or income from other sources depends on the evidence and explanation furnished by the assessee. If the deposits are found in the Bank account of the assessee

Smt. Neha Gopal Sharma, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-26(1) (Erstwhile Dy CIT Circle-23(3) ), Mumbai

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

ITA 1368/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Ramchandran

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

case, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is an individual and derived income from his business, short term capital gain and income from other sources. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed her return of income declaring taxable income of Rs.39,81,041, on 31/10/2007. During

Mr.Santosh S Lad, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1298/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

offered and consequently the same ought to have been allowed under the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee under head “income from other sources” has claimed expenses in the nature of interest on borrowings amounting to Rs.40,66,247/-. The interest income earned offered to tax at Rs.22

Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft Private Limtied, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 835/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

earned is incidental to the business activities of the assessee. Interest income should be considered to be part of business income rather than income from other sources. In this connection reliance can be placed on the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision in case of CIT vs Hewlett Packard ... course of its business and also interest earned by it from the staff loans and such interest income would not be taxable as 'Income from other Sources' under Section 56 of the Act. The incidental activity of parking of Surplus Funds with the Banks or advancing of staff loans

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 810/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

M/S. Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 69/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Prestige Estates Projects The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Prestige Falcon Tower, Income Tax, No. 19, Brunton Road, Central Circle – 1 Bangalore – North, (1), Bangalore – 560 025. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcp8096K Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 23.11.2021 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. General Ground 1.1 The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru (`Ao") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act-) In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

amount of Rs. 88,43,42,162/- for year under consideration as per assessee’s letter dated 14.04.2016 reproduced hereinabove under the head income from other sources. The Ld.AR submitted that, assessee paid tax of Rs.68,83,93,933/- and after considering the credit of tax paid amounting

Mapei Construction Products (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 283/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

such expenditure was incurred for earning the interest income of Rs. 60,13,880/- declared u/s. 56 of the Act under the head "Income from other sources". 5.2. Without prejudice to the above ground, that the learned lower authorities ought to have held that the above claim ... assessee submitted that the said amount was offered to tax u/s. 56 of the Act under the head “Income from other sources”. It is submitted that assessee had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 49,81,189/- towards interest paid on ECB loans which was claimed as deduction while computing income

Simplex Naigai Castings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 690/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S. Simplex Naigai Castings P. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer No. 116-C/1, Khb Colonhy, Ward - 6(1)(2) Vs. 5Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru Bengaluru 560034 Pan – Aaucs0627G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari KutsaFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale

confirming the addition of Rs.40,78,335/-, which has resulted in assessing interest income separately under the head income from other sources. The assessee has also raised a legal ground contending that the assessment is bad in law as the AO has exceeded his scope and there is lack ... process of setting up of a plant. The AO took the view that the interest income is assessable under the head “Income from other sources” and the business loss claimed by the assessee should be capitalised. Accordingly he computed NIL income under the head business. Accordingly, the AO assessed entire

Maker Towers A & B Co.Op. Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT WD 17(2) (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri B. V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri M. P. Ahuja (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

Maker Towers A & B Co-op Hsg society Ltd. respect of interest of Rs.1,04,09,041/-received from the co-operative banks (income from other sources). Section 80P(2)(d) deduction of Rs.1,04,09.041/- was denied by the CPC, Bangalore vide intimation

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 896/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

assessee- company is accepted as per below computation of income: Rs. I Business Income (as per (8,05,29,799) return) II Income from Other Sources 85,96,166/- (as per return) Total Income (7,19,33,633) MAT Calculation u/s 115JB of the Act Rs. Book Profit

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 895/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

Padmini Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO -18(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 691/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, S.R. A.R

Section 14ASection 57

sources. During assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has earned interest income of Rs.6,44,700/- under the head “income from other sources” against which interest expenses of Rs.10,25,921/- is claimed. Assessee was called upon to explain since interest income is much higher than ... also admitted in para 5 of the assessment order that the assessee has interest income of Rs.6,44,700/- under the head “income from other sources” against which interest expenses of Rs.10,25,921/- was claimed. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee challenging the impugned order passed by the AO/Ld

Siddhagiri Gurukul Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 625/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Cit (Exemption) Siddhagiri Gurukul Foundation Room No. 617, 6Th Floor, Siddharameshwar Mandir, Jayrameshwar Co-Op Hsg. Soc., Piramal Chambers, Vs. S.V. Road, Goregaon, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 062 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacts0759G

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit K. Shrivastava, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12Section 143Section 24Section 263

While computing the total income of the assessee in the body of the assessment order, learned assessing officer considered the income from other sources at ₹ 80,416,040/–, thus, did not include a sum of ₹ 5,369,864/–. However while preparing the computation sheet, the voluntary contribution