← 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

S R Constructions, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

ITA 636/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

Section 40A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K

Sheetal Bathla, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Kota, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shsrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

assessee. Thus amount of Rs. 1,07,49,690/- (1,13,75,000 – 6,25,310) which is to be treated as deeming income from other sources for the year under consideration. In view of the above facts and circumstances, such income i.e. Rs. 1,07,49,690/- has escaped ... total income of the assessee at Rs. 96,00,310/- by making an addition of Rs. 89,75,000/- treating it as deeming income from other sources on account of unexplained credit in bank account of the assesseeand completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147of

Ranjit Singh, Ropar vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Ropar

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

ITA 807/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 807/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ranjit Singh, The Ito, Kiri Afghana Behlolpur बना Warad 2 (2), Chamkaur Sahib, Rupnagar म Rupnagar 141121 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Gmqps5933A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12-11-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17-11-2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Dated 22.08.2024, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69

erroneously holding the cash deposit in bank account to be from unexplained sources and treating the same as income from other sources. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the orders passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since ... made by the Assessing Officer and confirming the cash deposit in bank account to be from unexplained sources and treating the same as income from other sources. 7. Briefly stated the facts of the case as culled out from the order of lower authorities are that the Assessee had made

The Sangli Salary Earners Co Op Society Ltd, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3 Sangli, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2254/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2254/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Sangli Salary Earners Co V The Income Tax Officer, Op Society Ltd., S. Ward-3, Sangli. 1104 B, Harbhat Road, Main City, Sangli – 416416 Pan: Aaaat0980D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Amit Sudhir Shintre(Virtual) Revenue By Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 27.08.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Read With Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Relying On The Decision Of Totgars Co-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Income- tax Act, 1961, against the interest income of ₹3,71,88,591/-, even after treating the same as "Income from Other Sources". The Appellant submits that such interest income has been earned out of statutory and working capital funds, on which substantial interest and administrative costs were incurred ... pleased to: a) Delete the addition of ₹3,71,88,591/-made by the Assessing Officer by treating the interest income as "Income from Other Sources and consequently allow the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) and/or 80P(2)(d) of the Income

Pritesh Ratanshi Ved, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1618/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

business of industrial gases and also having income from house property, income from short-term and long-term capital gains and also income from other sources and has not filed his return of income. As per information available on AIMS module of ITBA, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee

Kashipur Brihandayatan Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Purulia vs. ITO, Ward- 3(2), Purulia

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 249/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 249/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Kashipur Brihadayatan Credit Cooperative Society Limited,………………………………………Appellant Vill. & P.O. Kalapathar, District-Purulia-723121, West Bengal [Pan:Aaaak9453E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-3(2), Purulia, South Lake Road, Purulia-723101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri M. Goenka, C.A. & Shri S. Goenka, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 17, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

being satisfied, the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.11,08,044/- and added to the total income of the assessee under the head “income from other sources”. 2 Kashipur Brihadayatan Credit Cooperative Society Limited 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. Addl ... Apex Court has held that interest earned from retaining the amount payable to its members shall not be considered as income from other sources. However, in the instant case the facts are distinguishable and hence in our view the ratio laid down in the case of M/s. Totgars Cooperative Sale

Ganga Bishan, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2179/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 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. 6. We 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

Chander Sekhar Pahariya, Bhander vs. Assessing Officer, Gwalior

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 207/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

After considering assessee’s submissions, learned Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.11,03,753/- u/s. 69A as unexplained money, Rs.3,28,272/- as income from other sources, Rs.9,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act and Rs.30,52,957/- as unexplained cash credit ... except the addition of Rs.3,28,272/-, which was added by the Assessing Officer as assessee’s income from other sources. Learned CIT(Appeals), after considering assessee’s submissions, deleted Rs.9,00,000/-, which was added by ld. Assessing Officer as unexplained investment

Santokh Singh, Amritsar vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Amritsar

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

ITA 28/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 28/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Santokh Singh, H. No. 201, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Village Kot Kotgurbaksh, Amritsar. Amritsar, Punjab [Pan:-Emxps0241A] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv & Sh. V.S. Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 144Section 250Section 282

department, the assessment has been completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on a total income of Rs.45.80 lakhs as income from other sources. 4. The matter carried in appeal before the ld. First appellate authority has been dismissed without adjudication on the grounds contained in Form ... drew our attention to the computation sheets issued by the department to point out that the AO has considered the returned income as income from other sources and has taxed the same accordingly, and at the same time he has also considered net agriculture income of Rs.34.34 lakhs for rate

Vishal Ashok Chugera, Pune vs. DCIT, Cental Circle-1(3), Pune

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

ITA 438/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(2)Section 37Section 57Section 68

holding that the such interest expenditure was not incurred wholly or exclusively for the purpose of earning interest income under the 2 head "Income from Other Sources," without appreciating that there is direct indirect nexus of utilization of interest bearing funds for lending to appellant's group concern namely, Vishal ... Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual earning income from the business of land dealing and income from other sources. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 31.03.2021 by declaring total income of Rs.55,77,360/-. The case

Pandit Dindayal Upahyey Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd, Shahada vs. ITO, Ward 1, Dhule

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1409/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1409/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pandit Dindayal Upahyey V The Income Tax Officer, Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., S Ward -1, Dhule. Near Bohari Market Dondaicha Road, Shahade – 425409. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaald0407C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Pawan Bharti –Dr(Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 12/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee 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.2017-18 Dated 24.02.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 25.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

respect of interest earned from FDRs with Nationalized Banks on the ground that the said interest income was assessable u/s 56 as income from other sources without appreciating that the said addition was not justified on facts and in law 2] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that

Anita Gurumukh Gidwani, Sangli vs. ACIT, Circle, Sangli

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

ITA 1162/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vijay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR
Section 144Section 250

statutory notices, failed to respond, as a result of which, the AO passed the best judgment assessment making the additions under the head "income from other sources" and assessed income at Rs. 2,52,13,690/-. Being aggrieved with the said additions made by the AO, the assessee approached Ld.CIT

Pune Cantonment Board Kamgar Co-Operative Credit Society, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 2481/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the interest received from investment a sum of Rs.1,25,85,180/-, as income from other sources by rejecting appellants contention that said interest income is integral part of business activity and your appellant prays for cancellation of Assessing officer's action 4. Without

Reddy Sampat Vijaya, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1498/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

income of Rs.4,93,875/- and rounded off to Rs.5,00,000/- and balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- has been treated as “Income from other sources”. The A.O. further noted that, as per the seized documents found during the course of search, the assessee’s husband entered into ... assessee challenged the additions made by the A.O. towards ad hoc disallowance of agricultural income and assessed the income under the head “Income from other sources” and also made addition towards unexplained investment being the difference between the consideration as per sale agreement and the registered sale deed

Reddy Sampat Vijaya, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle -1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1497/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

income of Rs.4,93,875/- and rounded off to Rs.5,00,000/- and balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- has been treated as “Income from other sources”. The A.O. further noted that, as per the seized documents found during the course of search, the assessee’s husband entered into ... assessee challenged the additions made by the A.O. towards ad hoc disallowance of agricultural income and assessed the income under the head “Income from other sources” and also made addition towards unexplained investment being the difference between the consideration as per sale agreement and the registered sale deed

Reddy Sampat Vijaya, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle- 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1496/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

income of Rs.4,93,875/- and rounded off to Rs.5,00,000/- and balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- has been treated as “Income from other sources”. The A.O. further noted that, as per the seized documents found during the course of search, the assessee’s husband entered into ... assessee challenged the additions made by the A.O. towards ad hoc disallowance of agricultural income and assessed the income under the head “Income from other sources” and also made addition towards unexplained investment being the difference between the consideration as per sale agreement and the registered sale deed

Triveni Devi Bhutra, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 61(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 965/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 10DSection 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80C

assessing officer has stated that during the course of assessment proceedings the appellant admitted to treating the bonus from the insurance policy as income from other sources in her reply but the appellant is yet contesting this addition in this appeal. It is also observed from the record that

Abdul Jabbar Jaheer Husain, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2245/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2245/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Abdul Jabbar Jaheer The Income Tax Officer, Husain, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(2), No.17/73, Pillayar Koil Street, Chennai. Ayapakkam, Chennai – 600 077. Pan: Adopj 8688E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Padmanaban, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54BSection 54F

assessee had disclosed profit and loss from business or profession of Rs.1,46,560/-, Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.15,33,315/- and income from other sources of Rs.15,344/-. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the claim of deduction / exemption u/s.54F of the Act. The assessee

Incometax Officer, Ward-1, Tiptur vs. Sri Udayravi Credit Co-Op, Tiptur

ITA 2094/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Harsha J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2(24)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

interest income received from scheduled banks and other financial institutions and these interests have been treated as income from other sources. Therefore, these interest incomes are not eligible for deduction under sections 80P(2)(a)(i) as well as 80P(2)(d) of the Act and he also deleted addition

JCIT(OSD), New Delhi vs. Manish Vij, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1746/DEL/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshjcit, Vs. Manish Vij, A-1,/ 134, 1St Floor, Sk (Osd), Delhi Enclave, South West Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagpv7555H

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48Section 50C

capital market. The assessee during the year earned income from house property, income from business, income from capital gains and income from other sources. The return of income for AY 2022-23 was filed by the assessee on 04.11.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 32,71,14,870/- . During