← 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

JCIT OSD Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the

ITA 2260/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

HDFC Bank Limited, Mumbai as to whether income by way of interest on securities shall be chargeable to income tax under the head income from other sources or it is to fall under the head profits and gains of business and profession. The Board, going by the decision of this

JCIT(OSD) Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the

ITA 2259/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

HDFC Bank Limited, Mumbai as to whether income by way of interest on securities shall be chargeable to income tax under the head income from other sources or it is to fall under the head profits and gains of business and profession. The Board, going by the decision of this

JCIT(OSD) Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the

ITA 2258/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

that the issue was as to whether income by way of interest on securities shall be chargeable to income tax under the head income from other sources or it is to fall under the head profits and gains of business and profession. The Board, going by the decision of this

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the

ITA 1573/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

HDFC Bank Limited, Mumbai as to whether income by way of interest on securities shall be chargeable to income tax under the head income from other sources or it is to fall under the head profits and gains of business and profession. The Board, going by the decision of this

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 2 (3) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1555/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

HDFC Bank Limited, Mumbai as to whether income by way of interest on securities shall be chargeable to income tax under the head income from other sources or it is to fall under the head profits and gains of business and profession. The Board, going by the decision of this

Kabir Mulchandani, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD-II) Cr 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5342/MUM/2024[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Itano.5342/Mum/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Kabirmulchandani V/S. Acit (Osd-Ii) Cr-7, बनाम C/O R.C Kapoor & Co, Mumbai Chartered Accountants Acit (Osd-Ii) Cr-7, Mumbai D-36, South Extension Part-Ii, New Delhi 110049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpm1224B Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/"ितवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

determining the assessee’s income at Rs. 3,14,32,820/- after making the following additions: Income from salary Rs. 1,6032,600 Income From other Sources (i) Deemed Income Rs. 1,20,03,200/- (ii) Income from household withdrawal Rs. 7,00,000/- (iii) Unexplained expenditure

Aparna Sandeep Kulkarani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 909/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16 Aparna Sandeep Kulkarni, Income Tax Officer, 201A, Kanchanjanga, Int. Tax. Ward-3(1)(1), Sector 12-A, Plot No.12, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Koparkhairane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Navi Mumbai-400709. Bandra (East), Pan : Axfpk0077M Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan L. Vajani For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

difference of Rs. 28,93,400/- should not be added to the income of the assessee as income from other sources. However, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee, thereafter, basis information available on record, the AO proceeded and passed the draft assessment order wherein the amount ... brought to tax as income from other sources. 3. The assessee thereafter filed objections before the DRP. The DRP considered the submissions so filed by the assessee and disposed off the objections and confirmed the addition so made by the AO u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Thereafter

Vasai Urban Cooperative C Redit Society Ltd, Vasai vs. PCIT-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee allowed

ITA 2622/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

claimed by the assessee u/s. 80P(2) of the Act and taxed the same u/s. 56 of the Act under the head ‘income from other sources’ and to pass a de novo assessment order. 5. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the ld. PCIT

Sandeep Kumar Singh, Singrauli vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Singrauli

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

ITA 7/JAB/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2020-21 Sandeep Kumar Singh, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax B. 8/116, Sect. 15, Nigahi Colony, (Appeals) Nigahi, Singrauli Pan:Bvips2456Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Anoop Kumar Vishwakarma, Adv Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 30.09.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 23.09.2022, Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, The Order Of Learned Assessing Officer As Well As The The Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Based On Incorrect Revised I.T. Return. 2. Because, The Income Offered U/S. 56 & Deduction Claimed U/S. 57 Of The Income Tax In Revised Lt. Return Does Not Relates To The Assessee. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer & The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Making Disallowance / Addition Of Rs.51,42,446/-. 4. Because, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Facts In Giving Finding That "Entire Tds Credit Of Rs.81,729/- Relatable To Total Receipts Of Rs.56,61,867/- (Rs.55,09,367 + Rs.1,52,500) Is Claimed In Revised Return. Thus, It Is Clear That Whatever Income Admitted In Revised Return Is Not Randomly Admitted But Based On 16A Certificate Issued By Deductor M/S Gmr Infrastructure Ltd.

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Kumar Vishwakarma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 56Section 57Section 58

income of Rs. 4,97,420/-. The case of the assessee was selected for, ‘limited scrutiny’ on account of claim of deduction from income from other sources. The ld. AO records that he issued several notices to the assessee to which the assessee did not respond and therefore, a notice ... speed post service of India Post. On going through the return of income, the ld. AO observed that the assessee had shown income from other sources at Rs. 55,09,367/- and claimed a deduction under section 57 of Rs. 51,52,446/-. The assessee had not filed any reply

Smt Hansa Shah, Jabalpur vs. DCIT Circle 2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

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

ITA 52/JAB/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

declaring a total income of Rs. 29,49,930/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine whether the deduction against the income from other sources had been correctly shown in the return of income. Notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were served upon the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Katni vs. Aditya Agrawal, Katni

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 200/JAB/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 V. Aditya Agrawal Near New Collectorate, Jhinjhiri- C/O. Shri Ram Food 483501. Product, Industrial Area Bargawan-483501. Pan:Amepa0405H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rahul Badia, Ca Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Badia, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. DR-1
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

Rs.5,98,850/- on 26.07.2016 for the A.Y. 2016- 17. The assessee during the year under consideration has earned income from the salary, income from other sources and trading of commodity. The case of the assessee was re-opened by the Assessing Officer and a notice

Madhu Dubey, Allahabad vs. Dc/Ac-1(1), Allahabad, Mg Marg Allahabad

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

ITA 58/ALLD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

capital account. Therefore, Rs 48,68,000/which is recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee (Capital account) is an income from Undisclosed source of assessee under provision of section 68 of the I T Act,1961. [Addition of Rs 48.68,000/-] 8. Capital contribution in form of gift ... capital account. Therefore, Rs. 48.68,000/- which is recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee (Capital account) Is an income from undisclosed source of assessee under provision of section 68 of the I T Act,1961. Addition of Rs 32.90.000/-] 9, During course of examination of books

Naga Hanuman Solvent Oils Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 273/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.273/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Naga Hanuman Solvent Vs. Deputy Commissioner Oils (Pvt) Ltd., Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccn1547J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 30/09/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 21/02/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

addition of Rs. 33,87,382/- made by the AO by not granting exemption for agricultural income and treating the same as ‘income from other sources’. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 3. Succinctly stated the assessee company which is engaged

Madhya Pradesh Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(3), Bhopal

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

ITA 930/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimadhya Pradesh Urja Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Vikas Nigam Ltd, 2(3), Vs. 1 Urja Bhawan, Bhopal Link Road Nos.2, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aabcm1097M) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 253

total income as per return was at Rs.28,670/-. Addition of Rs.2,65,76,008/- was made on account of income from other sources. The addition of Rs.35,85,243/- was made on account of prior period expenses. The Addition of Rs.2,47,07,489/- was made on account

Mahesh Katragadda, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 659/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)

section 56(2)(x) of the Act, and treated the difference 4 Mahesh Katragadda of Rs. 18 lacs as the assessee’s income from other sources and added the same to his total income. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success

Rudaram Dungararamji Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ITO. 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5134/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(2)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

Rs.1,33,64,550 Rs.1,16,59,950). Accordingly, AO treated this difference as the income of the assessee under the head "income from other sources' u/s 56(2) (vii) (b) of the Act and added to the total income. Aggrieved with the above addition made in the assessment order ... fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head income from other sources. There are certain safeguards available to the assessee in respect of applicability of sec.56(2) (vii) (b) of the Act. First

ITO- 23(2)(1), Mumbai vs. J.M. Financial Mutual Fund, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, while the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4575/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

treating the amount of ₹110,80,56,197/–, disclosed under Schedule IE–I (application of income), as 3 J.M. Financial Mutual Fund income from other sources, thereby reducing the exemption claim. 4. It is an undisputed position in law that income of a mutual fund registered with SEBI enjoys complete

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sheth Realtors, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4008/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

with HDFC Bank, without appreciating that the said interest income was neither disclosed nor offered to tax by the assessee under the head "Income from Other Sources" in the original return of income. 8. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred ... assessee. Second issue is through ground no.7, whereby interest income of Rs.6,19,911/- on fixed deposits has been treated as income from other sources. Third issue is by ground nos.8 and 9, which is in respect of addition made of Rs. 96,31,381/- by applying provisions of section

M/S. Suravi Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3702/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of interest income amounting to Rs. 6,16.438/- under the head "Income from Other Sources" instead of allowing netting off against interest cost capitalized to WIP. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... income was 5 ITA No. 3702/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2018-19 M/s Suravi Infrastructure also added in the hands of the assessee under the head “income from other sources”. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 4. The Ld.CIT(A) some really rejected

Sheth Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO-7(1) (Erstwhile ITO-23(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2712/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

with HDFC Bank, without appreciating that the said interest income was neither disclosed nor offered to tax by the assessee under the head "Income from Other Sources" in the original return of income. 8. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred ... assessee. Second issue is through ground no.7, whereby interest income of Rs.6,19,911/- on fixed deposits has been treated as income from other sources. Third issue is by ground nos.8 and 9, which is in respect of addition made of Rs. 96,31,381/- by applying provisions of section