“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

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

same being wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income (eg dividend), it would be allowable under the head “income from other sources” u/s 57(iii) as dividend from these companies would be taxable under this head. It is further submitted that it is not necessary that

Shri. Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 680/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Sri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43ASection 43B

separately. In section 145, of the Act for determining the income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession or income from other sources, the same is to be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. The said

ACIT- 14 (1) (2), Mumbai vs. Urjankur Shree Tatyasaheb Kore Warna Power Co, Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground nos

ITA 1420/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Kabra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 14Section 56(1)

1421/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2013-14) form of fixed deposits and the same has earned interest income which is therefore to be taxed as income from other sources?” 2) “Whether the ld. CIT (A) was right in holding that the money placed in fixed deposits were inextricably linked with the setting ... income of the person is to be computed under the heads Salary, Income from House Property, Profits & gains from business/profession, Capital gains and income from other sources. In this respect the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 44 ITR 362 (SC) held

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3403/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2908/मुं/2019 ("न.व .2015-16) The Acit 3(2)(1), Room No.674, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Central Office, Yogakshema Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 005. Pan: Aaacl-0582-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 3403/मुं/2019 ("न. व .2015-16) Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Central Office, Yogakshema Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 005. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaacl-0582-H बनाम Vs. The Acit 3(2)(1), Room No.674, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 02

For Appellant: Shri T. SankarFor Respondent: Shri Farrokh V. Irani

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115OSection 14ASection 44

opinion, in the case relied upon by the AR of the assessee, question of taxability of particular items of income under the head income from other sources was not before the Tribunal. Therefore, upholding the order of the FAA we decide Ground of appeal no.3 against the assessee. 6. Since ... this Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head "Interest on securities", "Income from house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business carried

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2908/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri T. SankarFor Respondent: Shri Farrokh V. Irani

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115OSection 14ASection 44

Deena Asit Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4449/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, a/wFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. A.R. – CIT

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 254(1)Section 254(2)

assessee i.e. Rs. 5,941, the balance amount of Rs. 3,34,059 was declared as Lease and License fees under the head “Income from Other Sources”. The assessee had also given her residential flat on rental basis to Asit C. Mehta Investment Intermediate Ltd for annual rent ... adopted in assessment year 2012–13 which was upheld by CIT(A), added 10% of security deposit received by assessee under the head “Income from Other Sources”. 6. The CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 13 June 2018, following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee

M/S. Nsl Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 262/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.262/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Nsl Sugars Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 60/1, 2Nd Cross V. Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(1) Residency Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aagcs0938Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Dr.Manjunatha Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2022 Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Am : This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Dcit Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 30.04.2021 For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. Brief Facts Of The Case 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Sugar & Molasses Etc. It Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-2017 On 30.11.2016 With Returned Loss Of Rs.78,24,50,827. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued. Reference Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) For Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Specified Domestic Transactions Entered Into By The Assessee. The Tpo Passed An Order U/S 92Ca On 30.10.2019 Proposing The Adjustment Of Rs.96,57,60,845. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Passed A Draft Assessment Order On 23.12.2019 Incorporating The Tp Adjustment Proposed By The Tpo. In Addition, The Ao

For Appellant: Sri.T.Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunatha Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43BSection 92C

assessee had investments in shares to various companies amounting to Rs.383,99,01,000. The AO took the income shown under the head `income from other sources’ of Rs.144.73 lakh as an income exempt earned against the various investments made by the assessee. The AO proceeded to disallow the amount

Mr. Krishnakumar Narayanswamy Yelahanka, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(3)(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 582/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm Mr.Krishnakumar Income Tax Officer, Narayanaswamy Yelahanka, Ward-6(3)(3), #959, Vinayaka Nilaya, Bengaluru Vs. Vollalinagara Street, Yelahanka, Bengaluru Pan – Aabpy4989M Appellant Respondent : Shri V.Srinivasan, Adv. Assessee By Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 07-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-04-2022

For Respondent: Shri V.Srinivasan, Adv

Section 133ASection 148Section 234

With this I conclude the assessment as under:- Income from contracts as declared : Rs.12,50,000/- Rental receipts as declared : Rs.14,45,010/- Income from other sources (including additions of Rs.74,50,000) : Rs.78,32,278/- ------------------------- Total Income : Rs.1,05,27,297/- Add: Addl.Income agreed to be offered ... been complied by the assessee by offering total income of Rs.140 :- 6 -: Lakhs (Rs.65.5 Lakhs u/s.44AD and Rs.74.5 Lakhs as income from other sources – lending of ACB truck/tractor). 6. On the other hand, Ld.DR submitted that the assessee himself offered additional income of Rs.1.35 Crores for the AY.2015-

M/S Embassy Inn Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2781/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm Embassy Inn Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner 1St Floor, Of Income Tax, Embassy Point, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), 150 Infantry Rod, Bengaluru Bengluru Pan – Aaocs2145R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 57Section 57(3)

Total 95,73,377 The assessee declared interest income of Rs.36,94,973/-. Thus, the assessee computed the total loss under the head, income from other sources at Rs.(-) 58,78,404/-. 6. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the interest other than debenture interest to be allowed ... shown any revenue from operation for the year or last year as under: FY.2014-15 FY.2013-14 Income 36,94,973 NIL (interest income under income from other sources) Expense 1,33,10,788 87,903 Less: Expenses disallowed in Statement of total income 95,79,477 0 Total expenses

Versova Kokni Sunni Jamat Trust, Mumbai vs. CPC Bangalore, Bangalore

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

ITA 5905/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Firoz AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 250

rent received from hire of buildings of Rs.4,87,924, be taxed under the head “Income From House Property” and not as “Income From Other Sources”, as the trust is not registered under section 12A and is, therefore, an A.O.P.” 3. The issue arising in ground No.1 raised in assessee ... ground No. 2 raised in assessee‟s appeal is with regard to treating the rental income as „Income from House Property‟ instead of „Income from Other Sources‟. 7 Versova Kokni Sunni Jamat Trust ITA No.5905/Mum./2019 14. It is the claim of the assessee that amount

Shehroz Zakir Husain Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO - 26(3)(20, Mumbai

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

ITA 3243/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar () & Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Late Sh. Shehrozzakir Husain Malik Income Tax Officer-26(3)(2), Through Legal Heir Shahbazshehroz Malik, Pratyakshakar, C-11, 1307, Rcs & Associates Mayuresh Cosmos Vs. Bandrakurla Complex, Tower, Sarovarvihar Road, Sector-11, Cbd Bandra East, Belapur, Mumbai-400051. Navi Mumbai-400614. Pan No. Aagpm 4512 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Neeraj Mangla, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/04/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Neeraj Mangla, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 54

partner in the firm M/s Empire Group. The assessee during the year under consideration declared income from salary, house property, capital gain and income from other sources. The assessee filed return of income on 15.03.2017 declaring total income at ₹11,26,500/-. The return was processed

Arihant Universal Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-01, Thane, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4342/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

following disallowances / additions in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 25.03.2013:- a) Interest income treated as income from other sources – Rs 77,95,481/- b) Addition on account of bogus purchases - Rs 15,77,250/- c) Disallowance

Hindustan Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, W-26(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5902/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

erred in affirming with the learned AO in considering income earned by the society in normal course of business as income from other sources and denying deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i). 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred affirming with the learned AO in denying deduction ... offered for tax. Therefore, interest income amounting to Rs.1,88,328/- was added to the total income of the assessee under the head income of other sources. 4. Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) held as under :- “7.1.6 Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, I am of the view that

Rajhans Paper Company, Mumbai vs. ITO -14(2)-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 1237/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1237/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Rajhans Paper Company बिधम/ Ito, Ward-23(3)(2) C/O Shirish H. Shah & Co. ½, Mumbai. Vs. Mangrol Mansion 6, Rustom Sidhwa Marg, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffr8622J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rahul Sarda Revenue By: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 16.12.2013 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -25, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(A) Principles Of Natural Justice Violated 1. The Ld. Cit(A)-25, Mumbai Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Giving A Reasonable & Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard Before Passing The Order Conforming The Order Of The Income Tax Officer-14(3)(2), Mumbai(Ao). A.Y. 2009-10 2. The Learned (Cit(A) Erred In Stating That The Appellant Has Not Disputed The Figure Of Unaccounted Out Of The Books Excess Stock At Rs.25,95,321/-, As Against The Figure Of Rs.18,14,908/- As Computed As Per Appellant’S Earlier Letter Dated 15.04.2009. (B) Addition U/S 69-Rs.25,95,321/-

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 69

nothing but business stock. We noticed that the AO treated the above excess stock as additional income chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources. In our considered view, the excess stock found during search is nothing but business stock carried on by assessee which is not declared ... stock in only be treated as chargeable to tax 3 A.Y. 2009-10 under the head income from business not under the head income from other sources. Accordingly, ground no. 4 raised by assessee is allowed. 6. We observed from the record that the assessee has treated the excess stock

DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Antevorta Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5065/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 260A

earned by the assessee on fixed deposits placed with bank out of temporary surplus in business as 'Business Income" as against “Income from Other Sources” relying on the decision of ITAT in the case of M/s. Hiranandani Palace Garden Pvt. Ltd. even though the Department has filed appeal u/s.260A ... progress of the project being constructed by the assessee. b. Treating interest income of Rs.23,62,179/- earned on fixed deposits as „income from other sources‟. 3.1. The assessee is into business of Real estate development and had purchased a plot of land in Kodigehalli Village, YelahankaHobli, Hebbal, Bengaluru, Karnataka

ITO 3(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Structarch Developers P Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2408/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri A.K. TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263Section 68

earlier years brought forward business loss against addition u/s 68 of the I.T Act which is assessable under the head „ Income from other sources‟? ITA. No. 2408/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2005-06 6. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that

M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly

ITA 2870/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.2870/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 9Th Floor Prestige Of Income-Tax Thirulakshmi Vs. Circle-3(1)(1) No.11 M.G. Road Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 001 Pan No : Aabcs6967N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R. Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Respondent By : D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 16/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(13) For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 92C

releases of the product." 6.2 Persystent Systems Limited having revenue of 8103.64 Million from software services and other income of 323.76 million from income from other sources. Assessment year 2012-2013 is an abnormal year of operation to Persystent Systems Limited, which is evident from the annual report placed

Mystique Rose Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO -22(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1290/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Chaugule (AR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

interest received/earned from investment of funds with cooperative banks. Further, Interest income was not „profits and gains for business‟ but „income from other sources‟ and therefore, deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act was not allowable. ITA. No. 1290/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 4. In appeal ... taxed as business income under section 28 of the Act? In our view, such interest income would come in the category of "Income from other sources", hence, such interest income would be taxable under section 56 of the Act, as rightly held by the Assessing Officer. In this connection

Rashmi Ameya Developers Housing & Estate Realtors P. Ltd., Palghar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Thane

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1990/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rashmi Ameya Developers Acit, Central Circle-3, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Road No. Housing & Estate Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. D Ii, 01 02, Akanksha Commercial 16Z, Wagale Industrial Estate, Complex, Opp. Sajavat Complex, Thane-400 604. Achole Road, Nallasopara, Dist. Palghar-401 203. Pan No. Aaecr 8508 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153C

nature of income. The IT Act (Sec. 145) provides that income chargeable under the head Profits and Gains of Business or Professión or Income from Other Sources shall be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. Income is brought

Kavita Gupta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 26(2), Mumbai

ITA 5828/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Dalal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 57

that the Appellant is an individual who had salary income, income from house property, business income from trading activity, as well as income from other sources during the previous year 2016-17 relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18 and filed return of income which was picked up for detailed