“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

D.C.I.T.-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Haware Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3627/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj Gurjar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 22

seen that there was distinction between the 'income from business' and 'income from property' on one side, and 'any income from other sources'. The Tribunal, in our considered opinion, was absolutely unjustified in comparing the rental income with the dividend income on the Shares or interest income on the deposits

Smt. S.M.Shoba, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1955/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramanian, CA

Section 54F

assessee appeared before the Ld.AO and filed requisite details called for. From the assessment order, the Ld.AO noted that assessee had declared income from other sources of Rs. 8,66,860/- and long term capital gains of Rs. Nil. We observe that assessee claimed deduction u/s. 54F of Page

Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 699/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA

Section 144C

That the learned AO/ learned Panel erred in bringing to tax the interest income of INR 32,496,741 as "Income from Other Sources" as against reducing the same from Capital Work in Progress ("CWIP"). [corresponding to Ground 5] 11. Without prejudice to the ground no. 10 above, the learned

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 548/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA

Section 144C

Sonmarg Co-Op Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A) Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1334/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit (AR)For Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

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 ... society. The fact that such interest income is in the nature of „profits and gains‟ or ITA. No. 1334/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 „income from other sources‟ is not relevant for the purpose of granting benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 10. Mumbai Bench

Nagothane Byapari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Raigarh vs. Pr. CIT-1, Thane

ITA 1011/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1011/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nagothane Vyapari Sahakari बिधम/ Principal Commissioner Of Patsanstha Maryadit, Income Tax Vs. Bazerpeth Nagothane, Thane-1 Raigarh - 402106 Pan : Aaaan4367N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी) / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Ar) Revenue By: Shri A.K. Kardam (Cit Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Kardam (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

surplus fund with the Co-operative Banks and received interest on the said investments. Interest income would come in the category of “Income from Other Sources and not income from business”. Hence, such interest income would be taxable under section 56 of the Act as decided ... 1011/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 surplus fund retained by the society and not used for the purpose of the business as income from other sources has been distinguished not correctly. ………………………. The object of the society to serve its members by offering the credit facilities is the purpose for which the deduction

Mr. Khadir Ahmed, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(3)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 393/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Mr. Khadir Ahmed, # 836, Pipeline Road, The Income-Tax Opp: Bbmp Ward Office, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6 [3][3], Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Afxpa8334H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepesh Waghale, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 28.02.2020 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Sustaining A Sum Of Rs. 52,91,575/-Reckoned At 25% Of The Cash Deposits Made In The Bank Account Of Rs.2,11,66,300/- As Estimated Income Of The Appellant As Against The Addition Of Rs.64,05,000/- Made By The Learned A.O. As Unexplained Cash Deposits Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Waghale, CA

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234Section 54Section 54F

cash deposits, the Assessing Officer arrived at Rs.64,05,000/- as unexplained cash deposits and added the same as under the head of Income from Other Sources. However, during the course of the appeal proceedings the appellant submitted that the total receipts in his bank account including cheque and cash

M/S Kuchalambal Charities, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 2528/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 22Section 56

income from house property" in respect of the rental income and the other income generated was liable to be assessed under the head "income from other sources" without appreciating that the trust being a charitable trust, the surplus is required to be determined under commercial principles to which the provisions ... Court judgment in this regard and refrained from directing the AO to determine the income under the head "income from house property" and "income from other sources". 3 M/s.Kuchalambal Charities. 12. Without prejudice, the impugned addition as sustained by the learned CIT (Appeals) and also the income enhanced

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Apotex Pharmachem India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1227/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 10B

lacs after claiming deduction u/s.10B of the Act amounting to Rs.103.13 lacs in respect of its manufacturing activities. Further the assessee also recorded income from other sources (consisting of interest on deposits) amounting to INR 19.31 lacs. The net taxable income of the Company was arrived at INR 17.93 lacs

M/S. Satyam Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(4)Dy CIT CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 552/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 147Section 148Section 234B

Mrs. Alka Bharatkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 25, Mumbai

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

ITA 1603/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemrs. Alka Bharatkumar Vs. Ito – 27(1)(1) Shah, Room No. 406, 4Th 202, M-3-C, Shiv Sneh Floor, Tower No. 6, Chs, Pratiksha Nagar, Vashi Railway Station Sion (E),Mumbai- Complex, Vashi, 400022 Mumbai-400703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agpps8680P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.03.2022 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 (Appeals)- Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

issued. In compliance the assessee has filed the reply on ITBA through e-filing portal. The assessee derives income from house property and income from other sources. The Assessing officer (A.O) find that the assessee has made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 11,60,000/- during the demonetization period

DCIT Central Cir.1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sunny Vista Realators Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1545/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol B. Kirtane, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 153C

assessing officer to treat the interest income of Rs.8,36,30,107/-, being interest eared on fixed deposits as ‘Business Income’ instead of ‘Income from Other Sources’.” ITA No.1544/M/2021 for A.Y. 2009-10 "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... assessing officer to treat the interest income of Rs.7,44,58,749/-, being interest earned on fixed deposits as 'Business Income ' instead of 'Income from Other Sources’.” ITA No.1543/M/2021 for A.Y. 2013-14 "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Insurekot Sports P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1075/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Learned Cit(A) Noted The Facts Of The Case & Assessee’S Submission As Under :- “Assessee Has Availed Of A Franchiseeship Of Team Puneri Paltan Which Is A Participating Team In The Pro Kabaddi League Organized By Mashal Sports Private Limited. During Fy 2016 17 Ay 2017 18 It Received Prize Money Of Rs 3000000 Being The Third Placed Team Of The Event. The Same Is Accounted & Shown Under The Revenue From Operations As Prize Money. The Same Is 2 Insurekot Sports Pvt. Ltd.

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(ix)Section 56(2)(ib)

Invalid proceedings under section 143(1) and violation of principal of natural justice. 3) Addition of Rs. 30 lakhs under income from other sources. 4) Prize money of Rs. 30,00,000 received by appellant cannot be construed as winning from game under section 115BB r.w.s. 56(2)(ib) r.w.s ... dated 18th May 2018 was received by Assessee wherein it was stated that there is inconsistency between the lottery income under income from other source head in the return and Form 26AS to the extent of Rs. 3000000. Copy of the said communication is attached as Annexure 5. Assessee replied

Neumee Estate Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO 17 (2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 272/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleneumec Estate Vs. Ito – 17(2)(4) Developers Llp 112, Kautilya Bhavan, G-3, Natwar Chambers, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra 94, Nagindas Master East, Mumbai – Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400051 400 023. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfn6978R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Aditya Maheswari.Ar Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2022 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 (Appeals)-58, Mumbai Passed 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Maheswari.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

treating interest Rs. 1,80,979/- on fixed Neumec Estate Developers LLP, Mumbai. deposit given for bank guarantee for business necessity as income from other sources. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in reducing a sum of Rs. 166/- being interest ... officer (A.O) on perusal of the facts and information found that the interest accrued on fixed deposits was not disclosed under the head Income from other sources. Whereas the A.O considering the disclosure in Form.no. 26AS is of the opinion that the interest should be taxed under income from other

Chirag Pramod Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1191/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalechirag Pramod Shah Vs. Ito, Ward – 17(1)(3) 101-A, Poonam Room No. 110, 1St Chambers, B Wing Floor,Kautilya Bhavan, Dr. Ab Raod, Worli C-41 To C-43, G Block Mumbai – 400018 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400051

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 57Section 57(1)

information as called for. On perusal of the financial statements, the Assessing officer (A.O) find that the assessee has disclosed under the head income from other sources- savings bank interest and interest received and against the gross interest received, the assessee has claimed the interest paid to two persons ... observing that the assessee has not established the dominant purpose that the interest is paid for earning income by the assessee offered under income from other sources and disallowed the claim of interest paid of Rs.21,36,848/-and assessed the total income of Rs.32,49,470/- and passed

Sudhir Mahamunkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5447/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudhir Mahamunkar Vs. Ito, Ward – 26(3)(3) 41/12, Vijay Vilas,Vijay Pratyakshakar Bhavan Vilas Road, C-11, Room No. 505, Gb Road Kavesar, 5Th Floor, Bkc, Thane (W) – 400615 Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajdpm2635F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Kapil Jain.Ar Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumaryadav.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2022 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 (Appeals)-38, Mumbai Passed 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Kapil Jain.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh KumarYadav.DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69

mobile for sale of mobile Sim cards in the name and style of M/s. Balaji Enterprises. The assessee derives income from business and income from other sources. The assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y 2010-11 and the notice

Dr. Nirmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle-11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4825/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4825 & 4826/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11 & 2013-14) Dr. Nirmal Jain Vs. Ito, Circle – 11(1)(3) 2403/2404, Tower-B, Room No. 202, Oberoi Woods, Oberoi Aayakar Bhavan, Garden City, Goregaon Mumbai – 400020. (E), Mumbai – 400063 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaopj1273 Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Neena Jeph.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29-.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai For A.Y.2010-11 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act & For A.Y.2013-14 U/Sec143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Neena Jeph.Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23(1)(a)

case are that the assessee is engaged in IT Consultancy services and derives income from house property, profession, capital gains and income from other sources. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2010-11 on 30-07- 2010 declaring a total income

Shri Ushaben H. Ghadia, Mumbai vs. Dyc CIT -CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 618/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 132(1)Section 56(2)Section 68Section 80C

facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual having source of income from business income, income from house property and income from other sources. The appellant is also a partner in the partnership firm M/s. Millennium Associates. A search action u/s 132(1) was conducted ... made through deposition of cash. Though the donor owns some agricultural land but it does not clearly establish that he actually earned sufficient income from the source so that he could have generated enough surplus, after meeting his own expenses, to give gift to the present assessee. Further no proof

DCIT 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

ITA 7061/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viib)

provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and added to the income of the assessee under the head Income from Other Sources. 8. Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) reproduced the assessee’s submission. He noted that in this case A.O. was of the opinion ... assessee to explain why the aggregate FMV of the shares of IHPL and VDPL, exceeding the consideration should not be added as Income from Other Sources u/s. 56(2)(viia) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the book value of shares Impetus Healthserve Pvt. Ltd. was negative and produced

Ananya Ajay Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6 (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6950/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Ms. Sailaja Rai

Section 132(1)Section 6

incurred by non relative, it will be treated as gift. Therefore he supported the addition sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) under the head “income from other sources”. 12. In the rejoinder Ld. AR submitted that section 6(1)(c) provisions raised by the Ld.DR, it is submitted that Assessing Officer