“income from other sources”

DCIT Cent.Cir-8(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Farooq Ali Khan, Mumbai

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

unsubstantiated expenses and purchases and Rs. 600,000/for A.Y. 2009-10 on the ground of unsubstantiated expenses and treating agricultural income as income from other sources amounting to Rs 4,00,000. These additions were accepted by the assessee without any further appeal. 8.5 It has been noted that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit-4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Qmax Synthetics R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 5-B/174, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building, Mittal Mumbai – 400 020 Industrial Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0206D Respondent .. Appellant

without any bar from any legislated law of the land. The amendment has been brought in the Income Tax Act under the head "Income from other sources" by inserting Clause (viib) to Sec.56 of the Act wherein it has been provided that any consideration for issue of shares, that exceeds ... share premium was a capital receipt not exigible to tax Assessing Officer had taxed share premium under section 56(1) as assessee’s income from other sources – Whether since expenditure and receipt directly relating to share capital of a company are of capital in nature , share premium collected by assessee

Chalk Farm Ventures P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.906/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) बनधम/ Chalk Farm Ventures Pvt. Pcit-1 Ltd. B Wing, Ashar It Park, Vs. 6Th Floor, Wagle No.202, Delta Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Industrial Estate, Thane- Mumbai-400076. 400604 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcc0332A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Parikh Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2016-17 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. “Ground A: Proceeding U/S 263 Of The It Act Is Invalid & Bad In Law 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thane-1, (Pr. Cit) Erred In Facts & In Passing The Order U/S. 263 Without Appreciating That The Appellant Company Was Under Liquidation & No Order U/S. 263 Could Be Passed Without Giving Adequate Notice To The Liquidator Of The Appellant Company. 2. He Appellant Prays That Your Honour Hold That The Order Passed By The Ao U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As The Same Is Passed Without Issuing Notice To The Liquidator Of The Appellant Company.

A.Y.2016-17 is accepted. COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME 1. Profit & Gains of Business or Profession As per computation (4,04,60,136) 2. Income from Other sources As per computation 9,52,581 Total Income: 3,95,07,555 Unabsorved Loss : 3,95,07,555 Total Assessed Income

Shree Jalaram Builders & Dev., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Kumar Madan (supra) while considering the nature of payment received for alternative accommodation by the recipients held such payments at their hand as income from other sources instead of income from house property. That being the case, the payment made by the assessee also being in the nature of compensation

Joseph Peter Galiaud, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Rs.10,90,357/- i) That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.10,90,357/- u/s.68 of the Act as Income from Other Sources when the provisions of this section are not attracted to the case of this Appellant. ii) That the learned CIT(A) failed ... appreciate that the A.O. had himself admitted in his assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 26-12-2016, that the Appellant had Income from Other Sources only i.e. bank interest and tuitions and obviously no books were required to be maintained, accordingly provisions of section 68 do not get attracted

DCIT Circle-15 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Rankin Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2 and 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 15(3)(1) V. M/S. Rankin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, 4Th Floor Next To Classic Marble Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Subash Nagar Road, Bhandup (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400078 Pan: Aafcs5275B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Department By : Shri T. Shankar

then the amount received in excess of the FMV would be chargeable to tax in the hands of the recipient company as its income from other sources. | find from the facts of the case that the shares were indeed allotted in FY 2013-14 but the share application monies were

Naveen Virendrakumar Gupta, Thane vs. ITO (It) 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

declaring total income of Rs.5,91,178/-. The appellant's income consists of ESOP's income, capital gains, house property and income from other sources. The appellant in his return of income claimed exemption of ESOP's income of Rs.3,14,25,500/- and short term capital gain of Rs.21

Devkinandan Bagadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amar Jit Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee is an individual and is deriving income by way of house property, business income and income from other sources by way of interest. The assessee received the cash by way of brokerage. Therefore, the notice was given and after the reply

ACIT Circle-2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Yogiraj Jaichand Maker, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

year under consideration, the deceased assessee earned income from rendering professional services as management consultant and also on capital gain as well as income from other sources. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that assessee has set off Short Term Capital Loss amounting

Dy CIT(International Taxation)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Marubeni Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

accordance with Article 11(2) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Japan. The Assessing Officer treated the interest receipt as 'Income from Other Sources' and taxed at 42.024% without specifying any reason. The Assessing Officer also concluded that interest relates to the project office in India which ... permanent establishment and the same is taxable under the head 'Income from Other Sources' at the rate applicable to Foreign Companies plus surcharge and Education cess instead of special rates adopted by assessee. No show cause notice was given by Assessing Officer before treating the said interest receipt at taxable

Yogesh Mehra, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Yogesh Mehra, The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Flat No. 201 Krishna Presidency Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Air India Society North South Road No.8, Vs. Bldg. 19Th Flr, Mumbai-400 021 Vile Parle West, Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapm6139N

Brief fact of the case shows that assessee is an individual and derived income from house property, remuneration from the partnership firm and income from other sources. He filed his return of income on 11.10.2012 at Rs. 2,16,52,010/-. On 14.03.2013, search under section 132 of The Income

DCIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Wall Street Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Forex Dealers. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown income from business and profession, income from long term capital gain and income from other sources. The assessee e–filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29.11.2014, declaring total income at Rs.Nil. Wall Street Finance

Hdb Employees Welfare Trust, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

investment in shares and bonds. So the whole expenses of the trust are attributable to dividend and capital gain which is claimed under income from other sources. The dividend income is in the nature of exempt income for which Trust has not disallowed any expenses. Therefore the deduction ... during the hearing that for subsequent assessment years also the assessee itself not claimed these expenses and filed return of income disclosing total income under other sources. In view of the above, the assessment order completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20.12.2017 is set aside

Tara Kabra, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

relevant for the assessment year under consideration, is added to total income of assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 under Income from Other Sources.” Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) noted that additional evidence 9. has been submitted by the assessee. Additional evidence was forwarded to the Assessing ... Thus, the assessee gets relief of Rs.1,00,000/- and remaining amount of Rs. l,36,580/- is upheld as income from other sources. Consequently, ground no.2 is partly allowed.” 11. Against the above order the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. We have heard both the parties

Suman P Khurana, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2415/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suman P. Khurana बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-3(2) Room No.402, 4Th Floor, 501, Raheja Centre, Free Press Vs. Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mumbai-400021. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.S स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahpk0190Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shekhar Gupta Revenue By: Shri Hoshang B. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Annual Value Of The Property At Maker Chambers Iv, Nariman Point, Mumbai At Rs.82,86,301/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee. A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Value Of The Property At Gujranwala Town, Delhi At Rs.6,60,000/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee.

Trading in Shares, Securities and Future & Options (Derivative Transactions) During year under consideration, the assessee’s income comprising of business loss and income from other sources nil. The assessee has shown the income from house property as nil from the following premises.: - Sr. No Nature of property Situated at Area