← 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

Alliance Educational Foundation, Pathanamthitta vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Alappuzha

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 747/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Hon’Ble Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.747/Coch/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Alliance Educational Foundation, The Income Tax Officer, Malakkara, Aranmula, Vs. Exemption Ward, Edayaranmula S.O., Alapuzha. Pathanamthitta – 689 532. Pan: Aaata 3723E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.S.Venkitachalam, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ():

For Appellant: Shri M.S.Venkitachalam, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 155Section 186

Alliance Educational Foundation :- 2 -: 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an AOP (sub- category-Trust) and derives income from Other Sources. The appellant filed return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 09.11.2015 declaring total income of ‘Nil’. Assessing Officer (A.O.), CPC, Bangalore

Gourav Bhagwandas Agarwal, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(1), Pune

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

ITA 894/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Manish M. Mehta
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,91,45,500/- under the head income from other source by ignoring the facts that appellant was not the owner of the money seized. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief ... facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,91,45,500/- under the head of income from other sources by ignoring the fact that Mr Seeman George in his affidavit has confirmed that money belongs to him. The appellant prays for just

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar vs. Kanifnath Grmain Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Malad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2272/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2272/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Income Tax Officer, V Kanifnath Gramin Bigar Sheti Ward-2, Ahmednagar. S Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, At Post Maldad, Taluka Sangamner, Ahmednagar – 422608. Pan: Aabak1395E Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge –Addl.Cit(Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 04/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 01.07.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 22.09.2022. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal :

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

that Assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act, and made an addition of Rs.2,19,34,691/- as income from other sources. The relevant 2 paragraph of the assessment order are reproduced here as under : ITA No.2272/PUN/2025 [D] 3. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, Assessee

The Satara Zilla Krishi Bank Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Satara vs. ACIT, Satara, Cir-Satara

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

ITA 2156/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2155 & 2156/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Satara Zilla Krishi Bank Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Ajinkya Complex, 512, Ch. Shivaji Road, Camp, Sadar Bazar, Satara-415001 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Satara Circle, Vs. Satara Pan: Aaaat1502B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Ms. Renuka Arunrao Ghatge Shri S. Sadananda Singh 11-11-2025 28-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 15.07.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”/“Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay") 2020-21. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 41(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

providing credit facilities to its members. Hence, it is not the operational income of the society and is to be treated as Income from Other Sources. The Ld. A.O. has failed to appreciate that as per the Statement of Facts, the appellant has earned interest and dividend income of Rs.39 ... surplus funds deposited with cooperative Banks. Hence, it is not the operational income of the society, it is to be treated as income from other sources. Further, section 80(P)(2)(d) provides deduction in respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co-operative

The Satara Zilla Krishi Bank Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Satara vs. ACIT, Satara, Cir-Satara

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

ITA 2155/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2155 & 2156/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Satara Zilla Krishi Bank Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Ajinkya Complex, 512, Ch. Shivaji Road, Camp, Sadar Bazar, Satara-415001 Pan: Aaaat1502B अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Satara Circle, Vs. Satara प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Ms. Renuka Arunrao Ghatge Shri S. Sadananda Singh 11-11-2025 28-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 15.07.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”/“Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay") 2020-21. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 41(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

providing credit facilities to its members. Hence, it is not the operational income of the society and is to be treated as Income from Other Sources. The Ld. A.O. has failed to appreciate that as per the Statement of Facts, the appellant has earned interest and dividend income of Rs.39 ... surplus funds deposited with cooperative Banks. Hence, it is not the operational income of the society, it is to be treated as income from other sources. Further, Section 80P(2)(d) provides deduction in respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co-operative society

Simon Pavan Kumar Moses, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warang Al

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

ITA 557/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee in ‘limine' for want of prosecution and sustained the additions made by the A.O. towards capital gains, income from salary and income from other sources. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. None appeared ... same has not been offered to tax. The A.O., after considering the relevant facts, has assessed the interest income under the head ‘income from other sources'. Therefore, we uphold the additions made by the A.O. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced

Saunshi Urban Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Sanushi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

ITA 876/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharysaunshi Urban Co-Op Credit Society Ltd. 01 Saunshi Urban Co-Op Credit Society Ltd. Market Road Saunshi Saunshi 581 117 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaaas5548Q]

For Appellant: Ms. Harsha JFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian
Section 234BSection 250Section 270A(2)Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Assessee deduction for such corresponding expenses as available as per the provisions of the Act while computing income under the head ‘Income Form Other Sources’. 7. As regards, interest income received from the co-operative banks in concerned, it was contended on behalf of the Assessee that interest income earned ... deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act that fact that interest/dividend income is in the nature of ‘profits and gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ is not relevant. [Refer to State Bank Of India Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj) at Para 18, Pr. CIT Vs. Totagars

Dinesh Sunderrao Ghosalkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 7(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4770/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)

difference of Rs.75,29,652/- was thus added to the total income of the assessee under the head Income from Other Sources. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 3. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions filed by the assessee observed

Raj Singh, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6710/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 263Section 28Section 3

taxmann.com 301 (Del.) wherein the department has succeeded before their lordships that the impugned interest component ought to be assessed as income from “other” sources only. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contention. It emerges that this tribunal ... capital receipt' forming part of enhanced compensation as envisaged in section 45(5) of the Act to 'revenue receipt' chargeable to tax as income from other sources. The view taken by the Ld. AO that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act received by the assessee is exempt under

Rajpal, Jhajjar vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Unit

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6697/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 3Section 56(2)(viii)

taxmann.com 301 (Del.) wherein the department has succeeded before their lordships that the impugned interest component ought to be assessed as income from “other” sources only. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contention. It emerges that this tribunal ... capital receipt' forming part of enhanced compensation as envisaged in section 45(5) of the Act to 'revenue receipt' chargeable to tax as income from other sources. The view taken by the Ld. AO that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act received by the assessee is exempt under

Mavani Nilesh Harishbhai HUF, Porbandar vs. ITO, WD-2(3), Porbandar

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

ITA 422/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

filed his return of income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18, u/s 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 31.08.2017, showing income from other sources of Rs. 2,42,790/-. (Land Brokerage Income + Sub- Contract Work Income + Bank S.B. Interest Income). The assessee`s case was selected through CASS

Shri Vir Transport Opertors Copo Credit & Service Society Ltd., Dahod vs. The Dy. CIT, Anand Circle, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1465/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Ursvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The Assessing Officer treated such income as taxable under section 56 as income from other sources and held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) on interest received from co-operative banks and consequently disallowed ... funds in specified securities is part of its banking and credit activity and therefore proportionate expenditure relatable to income assessed under the head income from other sources ought to be allowed. The assessee further submitted that in its own case for earlier years, the jurisdictional Tribunal had held that proportionate

Dhanalakshmi, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2473/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2473/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. CIT (virtual)
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

making an addition of Rs.96,60,969/- u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act as unexplained money and Rs.5,55,281/- as income from other sources. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 143 days. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone

Paras Ramlal Jaiswar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-42(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5935/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2018-19 Paras Ramlal Jaiswar, Income Tax Officer, Flat No.4, Parijat Bldg, Ward-42(1)(4), Pandey Nagar, Raval Pada, Vs. Room No. 736, Dahisar East, Kautilya Bhavan, Maharashtra-400068. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan : Afdpj3068H Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Devendra Jain For Revenue : Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 14-05-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr.DR
Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

being the assessee‟s share in the differential amount between transaction value and the stamp duty value, was brought to tax as „income from other sources‟ u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). Separately the matter was also referred to DVO and since

Manju Garg, Meerut vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(4), Meerut

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 4934/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Monalisa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

play, we deem Page 2 of 4 [A.Y 2018-19] Smt. Manju Garg it fit to restore the issue of capital gain and income from other sources to the file of the Assessing Officer. 7. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable

Goswami Bhagwan Lal Educational Society, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward Exemption, Faridabad

ITA 2238/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10Section 10(230)Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

prayed that the income of the appellant/assessee, at most, should have been assessed under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ and consequential deductions should have been allowed in accordance with the provisions of section 57 of the Act. In support of the argument, the Ld. AR placed reliance ... income embedded in the gross receipts can be taxed and not the entire gross receipts as such and that too under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ in accordance with the provisions of sections 56 and 57 of the Act. Consequentially, the revenue expenditure incurred exclusively to earn income along

Deependra Kumar, Etah vs. ITO, Ward-4(3)(1), Etah

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 331/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

total income of the assessee as undisclosed income along with addition of Rs.15,818/-, being interest income from the said bank account, as income from other sources. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, vide order dated 07.11.2019 at a total income

St Patricks Educational Society, Gumla vs. Income Tax Officer W3(1), Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 70/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.70/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) St Patricks Educational Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Ranchi Society, Sisai Road, Gumla, Jharkhand-835207 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aakas 7872 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Dokania, CAFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr
Section 10Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 148

filed a return of income declaring nil income after claiming exemption u/s.10(23C(iiiad). During the year, the assessee is in receipt of Income from other sources of Rs 28,50,637/- and the same was claimed exempt. By virtue of section 139(4C) every educational institution referred

Ajithkumar Singu, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward (International Taxation), Vijayawada

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

ITA 348/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.348/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2021-22) Vs. Ajithkumar Singu The Income Tax Officer Ward (International Taxation) D.No. 8-76-1, Murikipudi Income Tax Office Chilakaluripeta C.R. Building, Annex Ramachandrapuram M.G. Road Guntur – 522626 Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Etxps2554D]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Further, Ld. AO also treated a net agricultural income of Rs.3,50,000/- as income from other sources for which the assessee did not have any objections. 3. On being aggrieved by the additions made by the Ld. AO, assessee filed

Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 891/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.891/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Country Club Hospitality Vs. Deputy Commissioner & Holidays Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-1(1), Pan: Aaacc8276B Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (For Short, “Cit(A)”), Dated 22.04.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Assessment Order Passed By The Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 26.12.2022 For Ay 2021-22. The Assessee Company

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 250

declaring a business loss of Rs. 33,88,31,712/- and an income of Rs. 5,80,20,640/- under the head “Income from other sources”. Thereafter, the case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS on the issue of “Large payments made u/s 194H