← 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

Shri Anosh Ekka, Sahibganj vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the three assesses are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 337/RAN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.322 To 325/Ran/2016 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 To 2010-2011) M/S Ekka Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Kajribar, Patartanr, Simdega, Jharkhand-835223 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabce 6018 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.337 To 341/Ran/2016 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2006-2007 To 2010-2011) Sri Anosh Ekka Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Kajribar, Patartanr, Simdega, Jharkhand-835223 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aagpe 7538 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.342 To 344/Ran/2016 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2006-2007 To 2008-2009) Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Kajribar, Patartanr, Simdega, Jharkhand-835223 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aagpe 7539 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Twelve Appeals Are Filed By The Three Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Ranchi, Both Dated 01.09.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 & 2010-2011, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 151

unexplained investment and unexplained income of Shri Anosh Ekka. The business income of Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka has been treated as the income from other sources of Shri Anosh Ekka. The unexplained expenditure allegedly of both Anosh Ekka and Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka was treated as the income from other ... form of share capital and secured loans in the case of M/s Ekka Construction has been treated as unexplained investment and income from other sources as also investments in the case of Shri Anosh Ekka on substantive basis. A perusal of the assessment order shows that in respect of share

M/S Ekka Construction Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the three assesses are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 325/RAN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.322 To 325/Ran/2016 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 To 2010-2011) M/S Ekka Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Kajribar, Patartanr, Simdega, Jharkhand-835223 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabce 6018 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.337 To 341/Ran/2016 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2006-2007 To 2010-2011) Sri Anosh Ekka Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Kajribar, Patartanr, Simdega, Jharkhand-835223 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aagpe 7538 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.342 To 344/Ran/2016 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2006-2007 To 2008-2009) Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Kajribar, Patartanr, Simdega, Jharkhand-835223 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aagpe 7539 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Twelve Appeals Are Filed By The Three Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Ranchi, Both Dated 01.09.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 & 2010-2011, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 151

unexplained investment and unexplained income of Shri Anosh Ekka. The business income of Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka has been treated as the income from other sources of Shri Anosh Ekka. The unexplained expenditure allegedly of both Anosh Ekka and Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka was treated as the income from other ... form of share capital and secured loans in the case of M/s Ekka Construction has been treated as unexplained investment and income from other sources as also investments in the case of Shri Anosh Ekka on substantive basis. A perusal of the assessment order shows that in respect of share

M/S Ekka Construction Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the three assesses are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 324/RAN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.322 To 325/Ran/2016 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 To 2010-2011) M/S Ekka Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Kajribar, Patartanr, Simdega, Jharkhand-835223 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabce 6018 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.337 To 341/Ran/2016 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2006-2007 To 2010-2011) Sri Anosh Ekka Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Kajribar, Patartanr, Simdega, Jharkhand-835223 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aagpe 7538 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.342 To 344/Ran/2016 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2006-2007 To 2008-2009) Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Kajribar, Patartanr, Simdega, Jharkhand-835223 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aagpe 7539 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Twelve Appeals Are Filed By The Three Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Ranchi, Both Dated 01.09.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 & 2010-2011, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 151

unexplained investment and unexplained income of Shri Anosh Ekka. The business income of Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka has been treated as the income from other sources of Shri Anosh Ekka. The unexplained expenditure allegedly of both Anosh Ekka and Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka was treated as the income from other ... form of share capital and secured loans in the case of M/s Ekka Construction has been treated as unexplained investment and income from other sources as also investments in the case of Shri Anosh Ekka on substantive basis. A perusal of the assessment order shows that in respect of share

M/S Ekka Construction Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the three assesses are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 323/RAN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.322 To 325/Ran/2016 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 To 2010-2011) M/S Ekka Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Kajribar, Patartanr, Simdega, Jharkhand-835223 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabce 6018 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.337 To 341/Ran/2016 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2006-2007 To 2010-2011) Sri Anosh Ekka Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Kajribar, Patartanr, Simdega, Jharkhand-835223 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aagpe 7538 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.342 To 344/Ran/2016 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2006-2007 To 2008-2009) Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Kajribar, Patartanr, Simdega, Jharkhand-835223 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aagpe 7539 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Twelve Appeals Are Filed By The Three Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Ranchi, Both Dated 01.09.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 & 2010-2011, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 151

unexplained investment and unexplained income of Shri Anosh Ekka. The business income of Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka has been treated as the income from other sources of Shri Anosh Ekka. The unexplained expenditure allegedly of both Anosh Ekka and Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka was treated as the income from other ... form of share capital and secured loans in the case of M/s Ekka Construction has been treated as unexplained investment and income from other sources as also investments in the case of Shri Anosh Ekka on substantive basis. A perusal of the assessment order shows that in respect of share

M/S Ekka Construction Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the three assesses are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 322/RAN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.322 To 325/Ran/2016 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 To 2010-2011) M/S Ekka Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Kajribar, Patartanr, Simdega, Jharkhand-835223 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabce 6018 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.337 To 341/Ran/2016 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2006-2007 To 2010-2011) Sri Anosh Ekka Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Kajribar, Patartanr, Simdega, Jharkhand-835223 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aagpe 7538 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.342 To 344/Ran/2016 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2006-2007 To 2008-2009) Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Kajribar, Patartanr, Simdega, Jharkhand-835223 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aagpe 7539 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Twelve Appeals Are Filed By The Three Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Ranchi, Both Dated 01.09.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 & 2010-2011, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 151

unexplained investment and unexplained income of Shri Anosh Ekka. The business income of Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka has been treated as the income from other sources of Shri Anosh Ekka. The unexplained expenditure allegedly of both Anosh Ekka and Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka was treated as the income from other ... form of share capital and secured loans in the case of M/s Ekka Construction has been treated as unexplained investment and income from other sources as also investments in the case of Shri Anosh Ekka on substantive basis. A perusal of the assessment order shows that in respect of share

ACIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. Shri Karaj Singh, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA No

ITA 726/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-Central Circle 2 Shri Karaj Singh बनाम/ Cr Building Sector 17 H. No 1379, Modern Colony, Near Iti Vs. Chandigarh 160017 Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atups-5528-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. Co. No. 16/Chandi/2024 [In Ita No. 726/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Karaj Singh Acit-Central Circle 2 बनाम/ H. No 1379, Modern Colony, Near Iti, Cr Building Sector 17 Vs. Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) Chandigarh 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atups-5528-A (Cross-Objector) : (Respondent) Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel (Ca) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 26-09-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

acre and accepted agricultural income to the extent of Rs.11.38 Lacs whereas the remaining income of Rs.9.47 Lacs was considered as ‘income from other sources’. 2.9 Finally, the assessment was framed determining total income of Rs.580.12 Lacs and accepting agricultural income of Rs.11.38 Lacs. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The assessee assailed

Rapolu Kavitha, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 775/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.772/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2019-20) 1. Shri Sunil Kumar Mukka, Warangal. Pan: Bhrpm0791F Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.775/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2019-20) 2. Ms. Rapolu Kavitha, Hyderabad. Pan: Agppr3343A (Appellant) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: Shri C. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Mukka & Ms. Rapolu Kavitha ("The Assessees”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-12 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Both Dated 05.03.2025 For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since The Grounds Raised By The Assessees Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual deriving income from salary and income from other sources. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2019–20 on 14.09.2020, admitting total income of Rs.5,50,670/-. During the year under consideration

Sunil Kumar Mukka, Warangal vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 772/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.772/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2019-20) 1. Shri Sunil Kumar Mukka, Warangal. Pan: Bhrpm0791F Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.775/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2019-20) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), 2. Ms. Rapolu Kavitha, Hyderabad. Pan: Agppr3343A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: Shri C. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Mukka & Ms. Rapolu Kavitha ("The Assessees\”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-12 (“Ld. Cit(A)"), Both Dated 05.03.2025 For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since The Grounds Raised By The Assessees Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual deriving income from salary and income from other sources. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2019–20 on 14.09.2020, admitting total income of Rs.5,50,670/-. During the year under consideration

Vitp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 573/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala andFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801A

assessee has a business income of Rs 7,42,25,071/-, short term capital gain of Rs 24,66,759/- and income from other sources of Rs 8,29,85,866/- aggregating to Rs 15,96, 77,696/- which was claimed and allowed as deduction u/s 80IA. The deduction ... claimed against eligible business income of Rs 7,42,25,071/- only and the claim of deduction against short term capital gain and income from other sources aggregating to Rs 8,54,52,625 (2466759+82985866) is not in order and should be brought to tax. Accordingly, the JAO submitted

Deepak Singhal, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 561/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.561/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2017-2018 Deepak Singhal, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 027. Ward-4(1), Vs. Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Avvps0498L Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.02.2024 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short “Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 144

affidavit of the assessee. Learned Authorised Representation of the Assessee Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate, has submitted that the assessee is derived income from other sources primarily through Commissions based activities such as cheque discounting and acting as an Agent. The assessee was not aware of about the impugned order passed ... assessed the total deposits in the bank account of the assessee to tax, whereas, the assessee has claimed that he is deriving the income from other sources primarily through commissions based activities and, therefore, only the earning of commission on the amount deposited in the bank account is claimed