← 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

Naseem Ahmed, Greater Noida vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Noida

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 658/DEL/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmanaseem Ahmed, Income Tax Officer, Vill: Haldouni, Post Kuleshra, Ward-2(3), Greater Noida,Gautambudh Vs. Noida Nagar, U.P.201306. Pan-Aijpa1555F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Raghu Raj Singh, Adv. & Shri Vijay Singhla, Ca. Department By Shridheeraj Kumar Jain,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.12.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of Order Dated 09.12.2019 Made By Assessing Officer(Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Ao’) U/S 144 R.W.S 147Of The Act For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Of Rs.2,35,000/- & Had Also Claimed Credit For Tds Of Rs.9,13,823/- The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issuing Of Notice 148 Of The Act On The Basis Of Information In Possession Of The Department That The Assessee Had Received Interest On Enhanced Compensation Of Rs.8,84,023/- From New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) During The Financial Year 2015-16, Relevant To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Which Tds Of Rs.8,84,023/- Was Deducted By The Authority. The Assessee Had Filed Return But Assessing Officer Was Of The View That The Amount Of Rs.88,40,230/- Was In The Nature Of Interest

Section 10(37)Section 144Section 145BSection 250Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

filed submission and which land were made basis for deciding the grounds raised. 6. Third addition is alleged of Rs.4,98,000/- as income from other sources. The assessee has shown an interest of Rs.88,000/- and rent income of Rs.1,47,000/- and the assessee relies Form 26AS, copy

ITO, Mumbai vs. Vatika Rayons Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2895/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 68

business transaction carried out by the assessee and added back interest income of Rs. 57,334/- as “Income from Other Sources”. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid additions / disallowance, the assessee has filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being ... also being evolved in this regard. In the proposed Direct Taxes Code, 2010, such forfeited sums may get taxed as income from other sources (residuary head). Clause (t) of section 58(2) is worded in a manner to rope in. Forfeited receipts even if they have capital character. It reads

Ganesh Polychem Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

assessee was that the ITO should have redetermined the loss so declared in the original return and set it off against the escaped income from other sources and even carried forward the loss, if necessary, to the subsequent assessment years. The Apex Court held that “39. As a result

Shri Gayatri Co Op Credit Society Niyamit Hattargi, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi

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

ITA 163/PAN/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.163/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2021-22 ) Shri Gayatri Co-Op Credit Vs. Pr.Cit, Society Niyamit Hattargi, C.R.Building, P B Road, Dadbanhatti, Navanagar, Yamakanmardi, Hubli-580025, Belagavi-591246, Karnataka Karnataka. Pan .No.Abasas5325A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

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

interest income earned 3 ITA. No. 163/PAN/2025 Shri Gayatri Co op Credit Society Niyamat Hattargi. from cooperative/scheduled banks should be treated as income from other sources and accordingly issued directions to the AO and set-aside the order 143(3) r.w.s 143B of the Act and has passed order ... directions of the Pr.CIT order to the assessing officer in respect of interest income earned from cooperative banks to be charged under income from other sources cannot be sustained and accordingly we allow the grounds of appeal in favour of the assessee pertaining to the disputed issue on interest income

Yarlagadda Venkanna Choudary, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 364/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble&

Section 132Section 133Section 143(3)

facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in directing the assessing officer to assess as income from other sources, the notional interest computed @ 12% of Rs.4,58,91,320. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal ... Ground Nos. | and 3 are general in nature and needs no adjudication. 6. Ground No. 2 is with respect to assessing the income from other sources based on the notional interest computed at 12% of Rs.4,58,91,320/-. On this issue, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhpatnam vs. M/S. Sardar Projects Pvt. Ltd, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 357/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 357/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22) Dcit – Central Circle – 1 V. M/S. Sardar Projects Pvt Ltd., 5Th Floor, Direct Taxes Building 7-5-64, Plot No. 48 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Pandurangarpuram Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530003 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aakcs3773K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 69A

cash Page No. 4 M/s. Sardar Projects Pvt Ltd., receipts as there is no nexus between the same as it was disclosed as income from other sources and not as business income by the assessee. Further with respect to unexplained expenditure, Ld. DR submitted that it is clear from ... regular books of accounts was not disputed by the revenue. The only contention of the revenue is that the assessee himself has offered “income from other sources” instead of “business receipts” and hence provisions of section 69A of the Act cannot be made applicable to the said on-money receipts

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Venkanna Choudary Yarlagadda, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 349/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon'Ble&**

Section 132Section 133Section 143(3)

facts of the case.* - *2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in directing the assessing officer to assess as income from other sources, the notional interest computed @12% of Rs.4,58,91,320.* - *3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal ... Ground Nos. 1 and 3 are general in nature and needs no adjudication. - **6.** Ground No. 2 is with respect to assessing the income from other sources based on the notional interest computed at 12% of Rs.4,58,91,320/-. On this issue, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter "Ld.AR"] submitted that

Yajuvendra Arjunbhai Dodiya, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 428/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.428/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Yajuvendra Arjunbhai Dodiya The Ito बनाम/ 34, Parimal Park, Iocl Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Colony Road Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 150 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Agapd 6830 B (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohan Thakkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 28/12/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Of Rs.39,95,720/- Being The Amount Of Commission Received By The Assessee From Tirth Agro Technology Pvt.Ltd. As Reflected In Form 26-As. The Ao Further Yajuvendra Arjunbhai Dodiya Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Thakkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250

assessee amounting to Rs.39,95,720/- had escaped assessment. He, accordingly, added the same to the income of the assessee as income from other sources. The Ld.CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal of the assessee confirming that the assessee neither had filed any return of income nor had deposited

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Rajeshkumar Rameshchandra Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1074/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &
Section 250Section 68

Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72ITR194 (SC) that “It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income, it is income from a source, which has already been taxed” 5.3.15 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Akshit Kumar ... these facts, the sales made by the assessee out of its opening stock were not treated as unexplained income, to be taxed as income from other sources. It thus manifests that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the entire material placed on record including the report of the AO.” Then

Pavan Kumar Gadia, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward 8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 624/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.624/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Pavan Kumar Gadia Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(1) Pan:Aakhp4026M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Suresh Babu Kn, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23/09/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y.207-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 129 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Explained The Reasons For The Delay In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Suresh Babu KN, Sr.AR

demonetization period of Rs.2,50,000/-. The assessee has explained before the Assessing Officer that the deposits are out of his regular income from other sources and earlier savings. However, the assessee has not filed any record or details to support the claim of the regular income as well

Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 561/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 561/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year:2017-18 Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, Ito 58A, Sathyamoorthy Street, Vs. Ward – 1(1), Salem – 636 001. Salem. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aijps-3267-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT
Section 56(2)(viii)

total interest received on enhanced compensation amounting to Rs.44,93,229/- as income of the appellant under the head :-2-: ITA. No:561/Chny/2025 "Income from Other Sources" in terms of Section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 145B(i) of the Act in the computation of total tax payable without assigning proper ... well as section 145B(1) of the Act, in order to bring the interest on compensation or on enhanced compensation as taxable as 'income from other sources' had concluded that the in view of the language used in Section 56(2)(viii) as well as Section 145B

K 0716 Rakkiapalayam Pacc, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4) Tirupur, Tirupur

ITA 1820/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1820/Chny/2025

Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). The Ld.AO concluded that any interest income earned out of surplus funds is in the nature of income from other sources liable for taxation u/s 56 of the Act. Further, the Ld.AO rejected the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee and placed reliance

Hamsakala Suresh Rao, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Mangalore

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

ITA 984/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri H Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing
Section 69A

deposits in the bank. 3. The assessee is an individual. He filed the return of income declaring ₹1,23,680/- under the head "Income from Other Sources." During assessment, the AO noticed cash deposits of ₹48,50,000/- in the assessee’s bank account. Since, the assessee did not give

Shantha Alias Shanthamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

ITA 465/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 153C

capital gains from joint development agreements (JDAs), treatment of sale proceeds from flats as business income, and inclusion of refundable deposits as income from other sources. 34.2 At the outset, we find force in the contention of the assessee that the jurisdiction assumed under section 153C

K N Dileep, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramnagar

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

ITA 1346/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Vijay Simha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

detailed below: Unexplained deemed income u/s 69A to be Rs.95,91,810/- taxed at special rates u/s 115BBE Business income Rs.4,40,834/- Income from other sources Rs.30,311/- Total income Rs.1,00,62,955/- 6. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s 144 of the Act dated 23.9.2019, the assessee

Laqshya Media Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3004/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

leaving a balance taxable business income of ₹13,54,89,627. Further, the short-term capital gains of ₹18,65,534 and income from other sources of ₹63,58,590 have also been claimed to be adjustable against the pool of unabsorbed depreciation, leaving thereafter a balance of unabsorbed depreciation

Pramod Kumar Dubey, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, 1(3), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 314/AGR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manuj Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 112ASection 112A(6)Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 87A

from salary - Rs. 3,10,000 Income from long-term capital gains - Rs. 99,677 Income from short-term capital gains - Rs.169,324 Income from other sources - Rs. 48,263 4. The assessee opted for new regime of taxation. As the total income of the assessee for the year under ... comprising the following: - Short-term capital gains u/s 111A: Rs. 3,79,559/- - Long-term capital gains u/s 112A: Rs. 38,840/- - Income from other sources: Rs. 9,236/- 2.2 The return was subsequently revised on 31.12.2024 within the time allowed under section 139(5), to correct certain omissions

Shivam Pipe Industries, Guwahati vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Guwahati

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: S.P. Bhati, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 37Section 80I

from business or profession of Rs. 41,39,786/- Rs. 97,721/- u/s 37 of the Act and Rs. 8,03,614/- from income from other sources. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS to examine the issue on “Investments / advances / loans and Reduction in profit due to ICDS

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad., Vejalpur vs. Gopalbhai Umarbhai Bharavad, Viramgam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 19/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Final Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Hem Chhajed, AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

exercised this power with respect to the grievance of the assessee on the treatment of agricultural income returned by him, as income from other sources, by the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that as per the provisions of Section 251(1)(a) of the Act where the order

Talluri Venkata Ramana, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

ITA 991/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144

Section 144 of the Act and the “net agriculture income” of Rs. 22,95,800/- disclosed by him will be treated as his income from other sources. Thereafter, the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings on 25.11.2016. The A.O. called upon the assessee to substantiate his claim of having earned ... explain as to why the entire amount of the impugned agriculture income of Rs. 22.95 lacs may not be treated as his income from other sources. As the assessee expressed his inability to furnish the requisite details/evidence in support of his claim of having earned agriculture income, therefore