“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

Shri Amitkumar Jasvantlal Doshi, Surendranagar vs. The DCIT, Cir.-4 (1) (1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 842/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 842/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Amitkumar Jasvantlal Doshi Cit(Appeals), Nfac-Delhi, Vs. 16, Ashok Nagar Society, Meghani Road, Dcit, Circ – 4(1)(1), Surendranagar-363001 Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aazpd3668C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Krunal Karia, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Krunal Karia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and the issue was reported as "Deductions from Income from other Sources" and "Agricultural income". Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.06.2021 was issued and this was followed by notices u/s 142(1) from ... Return of Income was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) on issues of "Deduction from Amitkumar J. Doshi Income from Other Sources" and "Agriculture Income". For the Assessment Year-2020-21, the Appellant was a director in Ronak Cotton Private Ltd. wherein assessee had lent funds

Katrathal Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Katrathal vs. ITO Ward 1 Sikar, Sikar

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1001/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250

Disallowance of Deduction u/s.80P of Rs.2,47,549/-, such Other Incomes including Interest Income, is taxed u/s.56 of the Act under the head “Income from Other Sources”. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under reported income are being initiated separately. Copy enclosed (PB19-23). In response thereto

Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd Vikramjot Basti, Vikramjot vs. Inocme Tax Officer Basti -New, Income Tax Office Basti

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 486/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas V. The Income Tax Officer Samiti Ltd. Basti Vikramjot, Basti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabas4611B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912. The Main Activity Of The Assessee Was Marketing Of Sugar Cane Grown By The Cane Growers, Who Were Members Of The Assessee-Society. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 21.03.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,73,170/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society Had Received Commission From Sugar Mills On Supply Of Sugar Cane Of Rs.70,16,032/-, Which Was Claimed As Exempt In Terms Of Section 80P(2)(A)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessee had received interest of Rs.20,33.851/- and the same was shown in the return of income for the year under consideration as ‘income from other sources’. The assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.20,33,851/- for the interest income under section 57 of the Act. The Assessing Officer ... interest and therefore, the interest earned out of the investments made in the bank would be an interest, which in turn would be income from other sources that would be chargeable to tax under section 56 of the Act. However, as the ld. Authorized Representative has pointed out, the arguments

Tatun Guha, Siliguri vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Siliguri

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

ITA 1644/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2013-14 Tatun Guha………..………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Namita Nilay, College Para, Siliguri, W.B - 734001.. [Pan: Ahbpg6041R] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Siliguri………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu & Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.07.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 282

assessee are that the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring business income of Rs.113194 and income from other sources of Rs.463649/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act as it appears that the assessee has not shown any income

Debasish Banerjee, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1047/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2018-19 Debasish Banerjee…………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, 1, Gibson Lane, Kol- 700069.. [Pan: Agfpb3602C] Vs. Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of An Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 30.04.2021 By Ito, Ward-44(1), Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 50C

assessee are that the assessee being an individual and derives income from business, capital gains from sale of house property and income from other sources and the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,40,660/- for the year under consideration. The case was selected

ITO 19.2.4, Mumbai vs. Nishita Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2989/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar

Section 250Section 50ESection 54ESection 54F

sale consideration arising from transfer of 87 shares of IMCPL to the assessee, being Rs 2,90,38,712/- as income from other sources instead of Income from Capital Gain ?" 5. The appellant craves, leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary ... purpose of computation of long term capital gain and balance 50% amounting to Rs. 2,90,38,711/- is considered as income from other sources. Thus, the AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) by (i) Denying the exemption claimed under section 54F/54EC (ii) Denying the indexation of cost

New India Exports Privat Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2016

ITA 2656/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. J.P. BairagraFor Respondent: 03/09/2025

assessee had declared income only under New India Exports Pvt. Ltd New India Exports Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 2655 & 2656/MUM/2025 the head “Income from Other Sources” “Income from Other Sources” and “Income from House “Income from House Property”. The dividend income was claimed as exempt . The dividend income was claimed

New India Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2016

ITA 2655/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. J.P. BairagraFor Respondent: 03/09/2025

Nishita Vijay Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)4, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1787/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar

Section 250Section 50ESection 54ESection 54F

Vishwakarma Enterprises India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3082/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3082/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2012-13) Vishwakarma Enterprises India P. Ltd., ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant E-136 Basement, Kalkaji, Delhi 110019 Pan: Aadcv-7136-J बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(4), R. No.194A, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110019 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Shyam Sunder Mangla, Chartered Accountant, (Through Vc) "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 19.12.2024, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 69 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay Of 69 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder Mangla, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 144Section 148

total credits in the bank account amounting to Rs.3,25,66,150/- and also made addition of Rs.1,80,137/- under the head income from other sources. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26.12.2019, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Even before the CIT(A), the matter could

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Jwil Infra Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1831/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)

interest income on fair valuation from the computation of income for business and profession but have failed to recognize such income as income from other sources. In the absence of any reply to the show cause notice, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 1,13,11,360/- to the income ... assessee under the head “income from other sources”. Page 3 of 8 ITA No. 1831/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2017-18] JWIL Infra Ltd Vs. ACIT 7. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition of Rs. 35,48,45,992/- holding that the assessee

Sahkari Karya Sanstha Shiksha Vibhag Indoor, Indore vs. ITO-4(3), Indore

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

ITA 348/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshisahkari Sanstha Shiksha Income Tax Officer 4(3), Vibhag, Indore 89, Nagar Nigam Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas8639M Assessee By Shri Jayant Jain, Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parpar, Cit-Dr With Shri Nihar Sahu Date Of Hearing 23.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.01.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi For A.Y.2018-19 Which Is Arising From The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 02.03.2021 Framed By National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Issues On Merits Against The Addition

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

Rs.23,01,359/- and interest on saving deposit at Rs.5,37,723/- are liable to be taxed under the head income from other sources and deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is not allowable. Further in the appeal filed before the appellate 2 Sahkarikarya Sanstha Shiksha Vibhag

Dhanlaxmi Mahila Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Pune vs. PCIT-1, Pune

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

ITA 1024/PUN/2025[1024]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Payal Rathi &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

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

society from providing credit facilities to its members. Consequently, the interest income of Rs. 26,02,451/- was required to be treated as 'income from other sources' not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) of the Act. However the FAO has allowed such deduction without considering the factual matrix ... have taken clue from the prima facie evidence indicating that the interest earned from these deposits deserved to be taxed under the head 'income from other sources and not as business income. The AO ought to have conducted necessary examinations and enquiries to find out the intent of the assessee

Jackie Mahesh Vora, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4672/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal/Shri Akhilesh Deshmukh, A/RsFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 37Section 57

upon the assessee. 5. While scrutinizing the return of income, the AO noticed that the assessee has shown interest income under the head income from other sources at Rs.95,03,234/-. The AO also found that the assessee has incurred interest expenses on sums borrowed from HDFC Ltd. amounting ... Rs.99,18,705/-and claimed the interest expenditure from the interest income under the head income from other sources. The AO further found that the assessee has lent money to its family companies, namely, JMP Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vora Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. and Sunil Capital and Securities

Mahesh Nanji Gami, Navi Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1560/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 1560/Mum/2025

For Appellant: Shri Khushiram Jhadwani, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 36Section 57

अपीलीय अधिकरण INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1560/Mum/2025 2 4. The AO noticed that there is no nexus with the income from other sources and disallowed the claim of interest. The assessee had strongly contended that the same should have been allowed ... Rs.48,89,313/- deserves to be allowed from the business income. Even if inadvertently the assessee has claimed as deduction under the head income from other sources but the claim u/s 36(iii) of the Act was made during the assessment proceedings itself which was rubbished

Manoj Kumar, Barwala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 596/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

assessee and made addition of Rs.6,91,582/-(Rs.13,72,825 - Rs.6,81,243) on account of undisclosed commission under the head income from other sources. Further, the AO made addition of Rs.6,90,583/- u/s.69A of the Act on account of unexplained income. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated

Manisha Kumari, Patna vs. Ward-5(2), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 286/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.286/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manisha Kumari…..……………..………. …………………....Appellant 5, Indrapuri, Keshri Nagar, Indrapuri, Patna, Pin-800024. Bihar.. [Pan: Afmpk0739D] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(2), Patna ......…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shikesh Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.11.2024 Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Relating To The Assessment Year 2016–17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed A Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,29,470 For The Assessment Year 2016–17. Based On Information That Income To The Tune Of ₹7,50,000 Had Escaped Assessment, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons For Reopening The Case & Obtained The Necessary Approval From The Competent Authority. Consequently, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. No Return Of Income Was Filed In Response To The Said Notice. Thereafter, Notices Under Section 142(1) Along With

Section 142(1)Section 148

completed the assessment ex parte under Sections 144 and 147 of the Act, treating the claimed agricultural income of ₹7,50,000 as “income from other sources.” 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The appeal, however

The Rudrapaka Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited H1249, Machilipatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudivada

ITA 162/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

Profit and Loss Account. Therefore, the A.O. rejected the explanation of the assessee and assessed the interest income, dividend income under the head “Income from other sources”, and rental income under the head “Income from house property”, and denied the claim under Section ... submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made by the A.O. towards interest income, dividend income under the head “Income from other sources”, and rental income under the head “Income from house property” by denying deduction under Section 80P of the Act, even though, the assessee

Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Kanpur vs. Pr CIT, Central, Kanpur

ITA 191/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 263

assessee was show caused vide questionnaire dated 17/04/2017 as to why the long term capital gain being exempt may not be treated as income from other sources and be added to his total income. The assessee in his reply stated that: i. the identity of the person duly stands substantiated

Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Kanpur vs. Pr CIT, Central, Kanpur

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 190/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 263